home

Revisiting Bill Clinton

An interesting, positive [and accurate] appraisal of Bill Clinton's Presidency from someone whose existing fans may be shocked to read these words from him :

If your concern is for the economic well-being of the working class, than attacking Clinton is a strange place to start. Under his presidency, real household incomes for the bottom 10th percentile -- a pretty good Rawlsian metric for economic well-being -- increased by 17.3 percent, the largest increase of any president since the Census Bureau began compiling numbers. . . .

[ More . . .]

One can certainly raise various critiques of Clinton's presidency, many of which I'd wholeheartedly agree with, but in broad strokes his economic program would seem to have been a tremendous success, particularly for the working poor. (Although the wealthy certainly also fared well under his presidency; growth in income was remarkably evenly distributed between all income classes under Clinton).

Indeed. The writer? Nate Silver. How will the CDSers, many of whom have expressed undying devotion to Silver, treat him now?

Silver is now engaged in a pi**ing contest with my friend (and inveterate CDSer) David Sirota. When you stick to the facts (as opposed to the name calling, Silver should drop the silly "Sirota is a Marxist" nonsense and Sirota should drop the "University of Chicago" ad hom), Silver wins this argument on the facts. For example, in a followup post, Silver writes:

Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well -- in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile.

. . . For my money, the Clintonan idea of "aggressive" pro-growth policies coupled with a relatively high tax rate on the rich is an attractive one. Let the rich make their money and then tax them (and/or improve social welfare programs for the poor). But don't do things that inhibit economic growth because you're afraid of the redistributive effects. A good example is something like free trade. The emerging consensus among both liberal and conservative economists appears to be that while free trade does increase GDP (as has long been believed), it also has some redistributive effects; the "consensus" solution to this is to have free trade coupled with a more robust safety net.

. . . The other potential lesson from the Clinton record, which I've argued may also be observable in the response of the economy to the housing crisis, is that the presence of a robust middle class in fact strongly related to the health of the economy as a whole. Note, again, that the wealthy actually did better under Clinton than they did under Reagan/Bush, even though Reagan/Bush were trying to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy. The explanation I find intuitively appealing is that there is some sort of optimum supply:demand balance in the economy, and that when too large a fraction of income accrues to the wealthy, this balance becomes out of whack because their are too many suppliers (beyond a certain level of income, the wealthy start to invest/supply their excess income rather than consume it) and not enough consumers. Almost all of the countries that are comparably wealthy to the United States have flatter income distributions, the only exceptions being Hong Kong and Singapore (which are as much cities as countries).

It so happens that I agree completely with this analysis and have spouted it for more years than I can count. I wonder what happens to Silver now? He was a favorite blogger of the anti-Clintonites, who never seemed to grasp that Obama is in fact an extension of Clintonism on economic and trade policy.

Perhaps he will be ok with them. After all, the rehabilitation of Bill Clinton is even occurring at Daily Kos.

In any event, good for Nate Silver.

Speaking for me only

< Dick Cheney Angry Over Bush's Refusal to Pardon Libby | Is Health Care Reform The Key To Saving The Auto Industry? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Red baiting and namecalling (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:36:41 AM EST
    ("Chicago elite") is not even worth getting involved in. Silver should apologize for that and Sirapota, who probably wrote in anger, should stop it.

    But on the merits of the argument, Silver wins in a 1st round KO.'

    Sirota simply does not write about Bill Clinton in any way that is fair or fact based.

    The Silver write up is good but I have one beef (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:40:12 AM EST
    The explanation I find intuitively appealing is that there is some sort of optimum supply:demand balance in the economy, and that when too large a fraction of income accrues to the wealthy, this balance becomes out of whack because their are too many suppliers (beyond a certain level of income, the wealthy start to invest/supply their excess income rather than consume it) and not enough consumers. Almost all of the countries that are comparably wealthy to the United States have flatter income distributions, the only exceptions being Hong Kong and Singapore (which are as much cities as countries).

    BLEH! Can we just toss the crystal ball junk "economic science" out please?  I'm sick to death of it right now.  Fer God's sake, it is much simpler than that.  A strong healthy robust middle class = economic health for all.  Grow a strong healthy middle class and it improves all classes duh!


    I thought that was actually (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:52:26 AM EST
    one of the more interesting, even original, insights in the piece.

    It was a call for levelling and income distribution.

    Parent

    I liked the second half of it (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:05:30 AM EST
    and that he noted that.  I didn't like that he wedded taking note of healthy middles to this though, The explanation I find intuitively appealing is that there is some sort of optimum supply:demand balance in the economy, and that when too large a fraction of income accrues to the wealthy, this balance becomes out of whack because their are too many suppliers (beyond a certain level of income, the wealthy start to invest/supply their excess income rather than consume it) and not enough consumers.

    You can shoot so many holes in stuff like that, arguing supply and demand all day until everyone is cross eyed and somehow the people always end up losing when our pols have those debates.  That's why I dislike it so much.  Making moves to strengthen the middle class creates markets for entrepreuners and a way up for those in poverty. An economy with a strong middle class can also take a lot of shocks as well......we took 9/11 fairly well considering what took place when we were strong.  I'd rather focus on that.

    Parent

    It's only interesting ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    because basic economic theory went out the window about three decades ago.

    But for those of us who never bought the nonsense that financial class was selling, this has been obvious all along.

    Parent

    Or to put it even ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    more simply:

    Flood up works much better than trickle down.

    Parent

    Love that! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    Flood up works much better than trickle down.

    OK, when will the DNC hire you to create slogans? ;-)

    Parent

    Completely agree (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by joanneleon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    Duh.  A robust middle class is the key to a strong economy -- for everyone!

    The fact that these guys are even writing about it now, as if it's a new idea, is insulting to our intelligence.  The fact that they seem to be just discovering that we were on that path in the 1990's is a sign that they are either dense or that their judgment becomes so clouded when they strongly support a candidate that they can't be trusted for truthful analysis or accurate information.

    Parent

    This is news? (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    We-the-people, we the middle class, knew it all along.

    A lot of bloggers are as out of touch with reality as are the media they said they would supplant.

    I did have a heck of a time though (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    as a single mom during the Clinton presidency trying to make certain I had decent health insurance coverage for self and daughter, but that isn't entirely Clinton's fault......perhaps not his fault at all.  He could have fought harder for me but it is doubtful that he would have won.  The safety net that used to prevent single mom's from falling through the cracks on healthcare basic needs began to disappear during the Clinton years. I suppose it is completely gone now.

    Parent
    Clinton made an interesting analogy (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    in his CNN interview. When asked which President he thinks he most resembled, he said TR and noted pointedly that a lot of what TR wanted to do did not happen until FDR was President.

    The point is obvious I think - Clinton = TR, Obama will equal FDR.

    Parent

    Maybe that is why I'm looking (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    for that Universal healthcare showdown and desire it so much.  I lived through the preparing for this and now I want it.  I have my healthcare covered well now but I've lived on the other side and I want to reap the rewards we all earned from this long haul!

    Parent
    I was a single mom of two then, too (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    and made it back into the middle class then, after the plunge into poverty levels that so often follows divorce (for women and children, anyway).

    It was not directly owing to Clinton's policies, which came too late to give me a break on my student loans or actually being able to buy us a home (and get out from under landlords from hell).  And it wasn't easy to get a mortgage as a single mom, as you know.  But I know that I benefited indirectly from a growing economy, or the banks would not have been giving mortgages much at all -- unlike today in a contracting economy.  And because of the Clinton economy, I even was able to refinance a few years later and get rid of those student loans, and that's when we finally started to get ahead.

    Part of that turn in our lives was owing to being able to find a job with decent health care, yes -- although there still were a lot of costs, owing to chronic conditions, that slowed our progress toward solvency again.  I am glad that you and I and ours made it out of the decline for women and children in the '80s, and I do not forget that some did not.  We cannot forget them now, when this president has the mandate that Clinton did not to finally fix health care in this country.

    Parent

    Same here (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by 1040su on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    Single mom with 1 child who will be 31 in April (egads I'm old!).  I've been having this on-going debate with a friend of mine about whose fault this is etc...  He was raised by a single parent too & knows how she struggled.  He wants to blame all those people who took mortgages knowing they couldn't afford them and it's because of Clinton's forcing banks to lend to marginal people etc...  It frustrates me, because on almost everything he's quite liberal. But on this, he's of the mindset that why should they get a break for being stupid & greedy when his Mom struggled to pay her mortgage & no one gave her any help.  Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I sent him earlier today...
    But, it was thanks to Clinton's policies that I was able to buy a house.  Prior to that, I never qualified because I couldn't come up with the huge down payment that lending institutions required. I still had to provide documentation of income & be credit worthy though.  Once in my house, my mortgage was actually less per month than what I was paying for rent.  It was people like me that his policies were targeting & it was a good thing.  I'm sure to most of these guys, my neighborhood is a low income neighborhood, whereas you & I think of low income neighborhoods in a totally different light & that's what they're counting on.   It's all perception.


    Parent
    Me, too. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    Single mom of two who couldn't seem to get away from the mergers and acquisitions whirlwind. I'd get a job and 6 months later the company would be swallowed up by a bigger one and the managers who were shareholders got a big pot of gold while the rest of us were sent back to the unemployment lines. Being in high tech country, maybe it was more obvious here. Eventually the investors got burned and the tech industry got hit. I'm now so used to having short-term jobs that I've given up on health care. Haven't seen a doctor in 13 years. I know the Clinton years were great for millions...I just wasn't one of them. Although, I certainly felt safer and not so distant from government while he was in charge.

    Parent
    It's not news (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:49:47 AM EST
    I think the source of the information being published is news.

    I think it is an interesting development.

    Indeed, I think Obama himself would like to see Clinton completely rehabilitated among his supporters.

    It is no accident that Bill Clinton was made available to the Media the past few days. Axelrod is a pretty sharp guy.

    Parent

    Oh, yeh, that was snark -- but (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    I cannot fully believe that Obama wants Bill Clinton fully rehabilitated, not after what Obama did to him and Hillary.  Obama wants to use them, yes, and they will be rehabilitated only to the extent that it works for him.  But if they exceed their place again and actually want domestic power, I would expect an Axelrovian smackdown in no time.

    Parent
    Proves Your Point (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    According to this view, the authoritarian need to maintain control and prove superiority over others is rooted in a worldview populated by enemies and empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit.



    Parent
    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    and this goes back to the idea that everyone who didn't support Hillary suffered from some kind of CDS(I hate that term).

    How is it up to Obama as to whether or not Bill Clinton is fully rehabilitated? My anger as an African-American and I can only speak for myself and those that I associate with regarding Bill were his actions during the primary which we felt were racially insensitive and appalling. This isn't to say that we hated Clinton during his presidency. Heck, African-Americans did very well under Bill Clinton but his actions during the primary left his reputation in the black community badly bruised. Nothing Obama could do would change that-- it would have to be Bill himself. I need to do a search but Rasmussen took a poll close to the end of the primaries which showed against McCain, Hillary would only get around 48% of the black vote which showed just how bad the Clinton brand had been damaged.  

    I was at the inauguration and an older black couple hissed when Bill appeared on the Jumbotron, not when Hillary was on but Bill. Obama has nothing to do with that.

    Parent

    Straw is your servant today (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    As someone who did not support Hillary Clinton, I can assure you that I did not think anyone who did not support her has CDS.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#28)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    As someone who did not support Hillary Clinton, I can assure you that I did not think anyone who did not support her has CDS.

    Surely you don't want me to go back into the archives now do you?

    Parent

    I demand that you do (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    You incoherence is amazing.

    Let me try stating it slowly.

    I did not support Clinton. Let me repeat it for you - I did not support clinton.

    I do not accuse myself of having CDS.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    You know I had a very long list that I found of stuff that you stated which would make it very hard for you to defend your assertion but I decided that I'm not going to embarrass you.

       

    Parent

    Obviously (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    You have not been following BTD here at TL.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    Yes, I am sure that is the case. Puhleeeaze.

    The fact is you found nothing. you know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

    I will in fact embarrass you now and call you out as a faker.

    Now, don't hold back. Post them. "Embarrass" me. If you can. you can't.  

    Parent

    Let me rephrase (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    and apologize for my tone.

    I welcome, indeed, insist, that you post your evidence.

    If I have something to regret, I am open to it.

    I do not believe there is anything you can point to but please post it.

    Again, apologies for my tone.

    Parent

    Here you go (none / 0) (#97)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    here  

    here

    here


    here

    here

    I am not going to waste more time going through the archives because it wouldn't be pretty but for you to say that you were not a Clinton supporter and that you didn't call anyone who wasn't one an Obamabot or suffering of CDS is absurd.

    Parent

    And these prove what exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    It looks like you just randomly grabbed some posts to... I dunno, create a link?  And hope people don't follow it.

    Talk about absurd.

    Parent

    You can't' click (none / 0) (#113)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    To see what he wrote in those?

    BTD claims that he didn't support Clinton and that he didn't accuse anyone who didn't support her as suffering from CDS.

    The evidence speaks for itself.  I personally don't care who he supported but if he is going to make such statements he should be prepared for when there is evidence that proves otherwise.

    Parent

    I clicked the first one (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    As I understand it, this post proves I was an (A) clinton supporter who (B) thought that all Obama supporters suffered from CDS. Here is the text of the post:

    Do Dems Want To Win In November? The Unity Ticket Is the Answer

    By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
    Posted on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST

    Via Todd Beeton:

    WXYZ-Action News/EPIC-MRA poll out of Michigan (600 LVs, May 19-22, MOE +/- 4%) finds Obama/Clinton beating McCain/Romney by 7 points.

        Obama/Clinton 51

        McCain/Romney 44

       . . . Obama's numbers in a head to head match-up against McCain[:]

        McCain 44

        Obama 40

    Hey Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, you want to win in November? Or do you want to purge the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party? I am prepared to step in if Pelosi and Kennedy do not agree with me on this . . .

    By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

    I move to strike your claim for failure to state a cause of action.

    Parent

    Ha! n/t (none / 0) (#119)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    I clicked on two more than BTD did (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    and they in no way support your accusation.

    Parent
    Goal posts waayy over there (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    and you still miss.

    You wrote "[F]or you to say that you were not a Clinton supporter . .  is absurd."

    It is absurd of you to say I was. You have no links, not one, where I for voting for Clinton.

    then you write "that you didn't call anyone who wasn't one an Obamabot." That is false as well. I did not call every Obama supporter and O-bot. Just some of them. I repeat, perhaps you do not believe this - I supported Obama, on the record, at this site, in the primaries.

    As for this "every Obama supporter suffering of CDS is absurd." the "every" is your problem. I said some did. And not an insignificant amount.

    Please stick to the facts.

    I did not click your links because it was not necessary.


    Parent

    Unless I was in the voting booth with you (none / 0) (#122)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    I cannot definitively state that you voted for Clinton but if you are going to try to deny that you didn't support Hillary,I'm going to laugh very hard.

    Also: one can support someone without physically voting for them.  My disagreement with you isn't over who you voted for it is about your assertion that you didn't support Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent

    Actually, as much as I hoped (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    BTD would support Hillary Clinton, let me assure you--that never happened.

    Parent
    Your posts=Epic fail (4.00 / 4) (#183)
    by dws3665 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    Learn to logic.

    BTD repeatedly stated that his view was that Obama and Clinton were negligibly different on policy and that Obama's preferential treatment by the media made him the horse to back in the Dem primary. You are simply -- and egregiously -- mistaken if you think that the record supports any other interpretation.

    Did BTD support Clinton against unfair charges (some leveled by Obama surrogates)? Yes.

    Did he support Clinton over Obama? No.

    Your posts indicate that you fail to understand the distinction.

    Parent

    You Are Absurdly Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#185)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    BTD was indisputably a tepid supporter of Obama. The only distinction he had from supporters like you is that he was not in love or starry eyed about Obama. The fact that he sinned in the eyes of obama cultist because he actually criticized Obama when he disagreed with him did not make him a Hillary cultist.

    You are seriously ignorant about what was said here over the last year if you think BTD voted for Hillary. Although it does suggest that you are like many here who can't get over their love for Hillary. During the last year many like you accused BTD of ODS and being a Hillary cultist only because they, like you, were so in the tank for Obama that no criticism of Obama was allowed, only reverence.

    Parent

    Then (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    I see no further point to conversing with you.

    Let me add this, call me a liar again and you will not be allowed to comment in my posts.

    You understand? I want to be clear on that point.

    Parent

    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    is the evidence, if unwittingly, for my argument.  Gosh, thanks.

    Parent
    Really? (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    You are the bot her or tard. You are arguing that the cult war is still on and that there can be nothing but nefarious and convoluted self serving reasons for Obama to want his supporters to see Clinton in a positive way.

    not after what Obama did to him and Hillary

    Sounds exactly what Adler is talking about.

    prove superiority over others is rooted in a worldview populated by enemies and empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit

    I have no not a drop of ODS or CDS, never have. I do find the obots and hiltards insufferable though.

    Parent

    "Bot"? "Tard"? (4.50 / 6) (#81)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    So erudite, adding so much to this site. . . .

    Parent
    Do you jump on people (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    for using the term "Obamabot" or is that somehow okay and more acceptable?

    Parent
    I don't like the term, (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    but more intriguing is why you would ignore the other term and keep defending someone who keep using -- and has been asked by other commenters here to stop using -- a derogatory word against the mentally retarded.

    So, by your logic, we can presume that term is somehow okay to you as well as to that commenter.  Beware the company that you keep.

    Parent

    I choose (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    to address the term I did because it is exponentially more common here on Talk Left.

    Parent
    YOu are Dishonest (1.00 / 2) (#187)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    In the other thread you psychoanalyzed Obama cultism with fancy pseudo intellectual BS by Adler. To claim that you are above labeling Obama cultists while at the same time give some nasty analysis of those who adulate Obama as people with authoritarian complexes is utterly dishonest. And particularly dishonest because there is little difference in behavior between those you refer to as Obama cultists and yourself.

    It is wildy hypocritical for you to go to the fainting couch when the word obot or hiltard is mentioned, as if you are above that sort of thing.

    Parent

    Clinton did not damage the Clinton (4.92 / 14) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    brand; Obama's people seized an opportunity to make something out of nothing and ginned it up to a fare-thee-well, and didn't stop until they were satisfied that Bill Clinton would have no influence over the black community.

    Remember this?

    "Those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

    That was Jesse Jackson, Jr. in New Hampshire.  Why did he say it?  Because they were worried the Iowa win was a fluke, and they were heading into the SC primary, where they absolutely had to have the black vote - or it might have been over for Obama.

    It didn't matter what either Clinton said, someone from the Obama campaign, or someone like the "neutral" Jim Clyburn, used it as an opportunity to paint as racist two people who were and are anything but.

    Believe what you want, but this was a calculated strategy to take Hillary out of the race and poison Bill Clinton's relationship with the black community.  I find it shameful that the AA community allowed themselves to be used that way, and so quickly and easily abandonded people who had never shown the slightest inclination to racist rhetoric or belief or policy.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    the AA community allowed itself, try not to be so patronizing, I mean did the white cmmunity allow itself to think that Obama was elitist as per Hillary's campaign strategy?

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    But all the Clinton campaign propaganda formulated only to take Obama out of the race was just 'true'.

    These were two fighters in the ring. THere were many supporting either side also fighting using anything from half truths to total lies. What is unusual about that in a campaign?

    Nothing. The pro politicians know it and are not 'hurt', why not take the example from the leaders who are bff now and get over it?

    Parent

    Bill Clinton's reputation did not (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    get tarnished over anything but his alleged racist comments, and cotton candy decided s/he needed to provide proof for why he was damaged and why neither Obama nor anyone but Bill should do anything to repair that damage.

    That is what I was responding to - but you probably knew that; it just seems easier for some people to change the subject than deal with the one at hand.

    If cotton candy had wanted to raise some other reason why Clinton was damaged, I would have addressed that.  

    The constant nagging at people to "just get over it" is nothing more than a weak effort to avoid whatever points are raised in opposition to someone else's argument; it tells me you have nothing with which to refute my points.  What's next, squeaky, the PUMA accusation?  You crack me up.

    When I make the claim that the Clinton campaign never took liberties with the facts, then you can throw that in my face.  Until then?  Well, you figure it out.


    Parent

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    get tarnished over anything but his alleged racist comments,

    You are right--and he was tarnished by what the black community considered racially insensitive comments.  Just because you consider them "alleged" doesn't mean that others weren't offended and saw them as more than just false allegations.


    If cotton candy had wanted to raise some other reason why Clinton was damaged, I would have addressed that.
     

    What other reasons could there be? The only thing that I have heard is his comments from the primaries. I have yet to hear someone say that Bill Clinton's economic record has damaged him and why should it.

    The constant nagging at people to "just get over it" is nothing more than a weak effort to avoid whatever points are raised in opposition to someone else's argument; it tells me you have nothing with which to refute my points.  What's next, squeaky, the PUMA accusation?  You crack me up.

    Right again. If we ignore history it tends to repeat itself.  This country has a lot of racial issues that make whites very uncomfortable to talk about. Whites don't like to talk about race nor be called racist no matter what because it makes them uncomfortable. Unfortunately, blacks don't have that luxury in this country.  This isn't about avoiding points from the opposition it's about discussing those points in consideration of other points that makes those on the receiving end uncomfortable.

    If I recall correctly Anne, you made a comment about how you are tired of race being injected into everything and how you can't say anything without being accused of racism.  That's easy for you to say as you are white and not black living in a world where for decades you were and in many cases are treated like a second class citizen.

    Parent

    The Clinton campaign attacked Obama (5.00 / 12) (#144)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    primarily on his lack of experience on the world stage (and specific policy differences  --health care, for instance). Even when that criticism was harsh it was a legitimate, conventional approach given his short time in national office, an approach that has been used against white candidates routinely, and one that was in fact used by the very people running Obama's campaign against Dean in 2004. And, of course, it was a natural counterpoint to Hillary's own claims of "experience." (Hillary's "3am" tv spot, by the way, didn't even begin to approach the outrageousness of Gibbs' use of Osama Bin Laden to make the same point against Howard Dean in 2004. And the accusations of racism level at that spot were simply dishonest). Suggesting that a conventional campaign against an opponent's "experience" was racially coded, as Obama supporters often did, was not only ungrounded -- but in fact was just one of the many subtle, and most benign, ways the Obama camp painted both Clintons as racist or, at least, "racially insensitive."

    Black, white, or anything else, people who care about race relations in this country, and about the country, should be concerned when ANY campaign attempts to exploit racial distrust, paranoia and understandable sensitivity. It has nothing to do with which candidate you support, and everything to do with believing that political efforts to divide us by race and encourage distrust between Americans is morally unacceptable. Just as unacceptable when black politicians attempt to exploit racial distrust among black voters as when white politicians do so among white voters. Frankly, while there is a difference in the amount of arresting drama, I see no MORAL difference between Richard Nixon's tv spot featuring a frightened elderly white woman walking along a darkened street with ominous footsteps behind her -- a spot so foul, depraved and over the top in its intended scare tactics against both blacks and young people in general that it made me cry -- and the Obama camp's many efforts to paint the Clintons as racist; the  race baiting AND sexist talking point about her lack of tears for Katrina, the ridiculous racist interpretation of her conventional statement about MLK, LBJ and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, as well as Bill Clinton's weary, rambling, wonky musings on SC's past voting patterns (after the polls closed), the dishonest accusations about and exploitation of a photo spread on the internet by Right Wing sources of Obama in "Muslim" dress, etc., etc., etc. They all had the same motive -- the exploitation and encouragement of racial distrust.

    Is black America's distrust of white politicians understandable? Yes. Have they had endless legitimate reasons for that distrust over centuries? Yes. Does that make the intentional and unjustified exploitation of that distrust acceptable? No. Quite the contrary. It makes it even more despicable, in my book at least, especially when the "creators" of such a campaign are in truth are for the most part just a bunch of cynical white men -- more than happy to exploit both racial fear and gender prejudice.

    The fact is, racial progress in this country will require self awareness and sensitivity -- and a willingness to sometimes take a chance on trust -- on ALL sides. As grossly unfair as it seems, having been the victim of prejudice can not be an excuse for letting your own prejudices and fears go unexamined.

       

    Parent

    Actually Anne (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    Believe what you want, but this was a calculated strategy to take Hillary out of the race and poison Bill Clinton's relationship with the black community.

    We aren't mindless robots. Did you miss the "black spokesperson" survey that gallup did back in June in which we weren't all blindly following the words of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the media would have you believe.

    You may not be familiar, but the black community is very loyal to those that do right by them. It is in our interest to form alliances given that we are a MINORITY group. There is a reason why blacks switched en masse from Republicans to dems.  There is a reason why the dems have had such a strangle on the black community for decades. I don't particularly agree with this as it leads to complacency but it is the truth.

    When Bill Clinton made his comments in South Carolina, many blacks were deeply offended because we knew what was going on. It is often unspoken among our white friends and colleagues but we can sense dog whistles. There wasn't any calculated attempt to poison Bill Clinton's relationship and if you noticed--going into the SC primary Obama was only getting like 60% of the black vote and Hillary even won about 15% of the black vote iirc.  

    Parent

    You "knew" what was going on? (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    How did you "know" what was going on? Could you read his mind?

    If someone who has never shown any racist inclination whatsoever, and in fact has helped all his life with race causes you care about, why should your first reaction be to think he was being racist (or at least, using race in an inappropriate way)?

    On most other subjects, in different circumstances, the reaction would have been "well, maybe that didn't sound quite right, but he's always been a good guy on this subject, so I'm not going to assume the worst".

    However, in the stressed out environment of the primaries, apparently everybody had to assume the worst.

    This had less to do with Bill Clinton himself than the tensions of the primary. In general, things get blown out of proportion with any candidate (by supporters of another candidate), but in this case, it was magnified because race is already a loaded issue, and there was a black candidate with a great shot at winning running.


    Parent

    If you haven't noticed (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    I'm African-American and deeply rooted in the black community so if you want to question whether or not "I knew" or others "knew" go ahead but you will look like a fool.

    Parent
    How could we not notice? (5.00 / 11) (#125)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    You spend much of your time telling all of us that aren't AA that not only do we don't know what we're talking about, but we shouldn't even bother because whatever you know trumps whatever we know, think or experience.  Maybe that sort of browbeating has worked for you in some quarters, but it doesn't work with me.

    And I guess you have missed the irony of the fact that you're always right there to accuse others of generalizing about the AA community, even as you seem to have appointed yourself the spokesperson for that community.

    But just keep holding onto all that anger; I'm sure it will be most helpful to the progress of race relations...

    Parent

    And you are (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    doing what again for race relations?

    I can speak for myself and speak for those that I associate with. There is no spokesperson for the black community because we are unique but to think that when it comes to race relations given that my people were treated equally as second class citizens, I think I have a bit more cred than you do.

    I'm not angry any more but just disappointed at people like you who refuse to face issues of race head on and accept that yes, blacks aren't mindless and individually came to the conclusion that Bill Clinton did some racially insensitive things.

    I know whites don't like to talk about race but just because you don't like to talk about it doesn't mean it is going to go away.

    Parent

    There you go, generalizing about (5.00 / 8) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    my people again - saying that "whites don't like to talk about race."  I don't think you can possibly know what white people think, and any attempt on your part to do so will make you look like a fool.

    If you want to talk, candy, then respond to those who are talking about it, and do it in a way that indicates you give a tiny rat's a$$ what anyone who isn't black thinks.  You don't know a darn thing about "people like me," because you are too busy making sure that everyone knows that you have a right to be angry, and you won't let go of that anger long enough to open yourself up to a real conversation.

    As for what I am doing for race relations, I do not use race as the basis for my interaction with the people I know and work with and encounter.  

    And, whether you want to admit it or not, you are angry - very angry - and that, as far as I can tell, is only alienating you from people who can and do and will engage in substantive, rational, and open-minded discussion with anyone.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    That's not an answer.

    On one hand, it is of course true that, as a white, foreign guy, I do not have the experience with race issues that you have.

    On the the other hand, it's also an easy way to avoid answering and kill a discussion.


    Parent

    Of course! (1.00 / 2) (#131)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    Discussing race only kills a conversation when some aren't mature and comfortable enough to talk about it.

    If those before me didn't speak up, my life would probably be a lot harder than it is now.

    Parent

    Wuh? (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    I thought I made a comment that wasn't unreasonable. Maybe you could have refuted it, but instead you choose to take the position that (only) you can understand because of your race, and refuse to address it any further. And now we're down to accusations of immaturity?

    Ah well, this discussion has been killed, obviously.


    Parent

    The attitude that a lot (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    of African-Americans and younger whites (where their is naturally a much larger amount of culutral intermingling- at the 20s, college educated level race difference are just not as distinct as they were 20 years ago) a lot people sensed the attitude from the Clinton camp (Bill/Hillary and supporters) that African-Americans should be grateful and vote for Hillary, that they should basically wait their turn, and frankly this more than outright racism is what offended a lot of people.

    Parent
    Thank you! (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    that African-Americans should be grateful and vote for Hillary, that they should basically wait their turn, and frankly this more than outright racism is what offended a lot of people.

    Bingo.

    We know outright racists and treat them with disgust as such, it is the dog whistling that is most offensive that we pick up and that just makes the blood boil.

    Parent

    Seriously, you need to stop w/the generalizations (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    You may not be familiar, but the black community is very loyal to those that do right by them.

    This is not specific to black folks and it also contradicts the very premise of your argument that Bill needs to somehow "atone."

    Just say "you and the folks you knew" and be done with it.  Not all of us felt the same way about Clinton's statements during the primary.

    Parent

    Stop with the generalizations? (none / 0) (#136)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    When the Clintons poll ratings among AA's plunged by 30 points I seriously doubt that was just based on "generalizations."

    Again, as a black who is deeply rooted in the black community and not only that looking at the damn numbers I think it is safe to say that my comments are not just broad generalizations of the opinions of a few.

    Parent

    If all the black folk you associated with (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    believed the same load of crap, um, excuse me, spin, about Bill's statement being racist, then of course, for the circle of people you refer to, it wouldn't be a generalization.  The circle of folks I was in didn't believe the same thing - at least they didn't after hearing or reading the whole quote in it's entire context.  To quote poll ratings doesn't prove the underlying contention that Bill was racist.  Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it true.  You speak about "truth" as it relates to race relations, well, that goes both ways.

    Parent
    What comments? (5.00 / 11) (#126)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    The one where, in response to a reporter's question where he was asked if he was surprised that Obama won the SC primary, he said:

    "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here."

    (BTW, Jesse Jackson himself said "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments.")

    Or the "fairy tale" comment, which was about Obama's history on the Iraq War?

    First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel [NE] was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.

    He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by [then-national security adviser] Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.

    Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

    Give me a break.

    [applause]

    This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports.

    Those comments?  Are there others?

    Parent

    Yes there was (a "calculated attempt") (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    For one thing, a press release with "talking points" dishonestly implying a intentional racist sub-text to Clinton and Clinton supporters' statements -- generally wildly out of context, most often very dishonestly interpreted (such as a Cuomo quote that did not refer to Obama, as well as the perfectly banal and truthful statement about LBJ's use of political power to pass the Civil Rights Act, etc.) was distributed by the Obama campaign to the media during the South Carolina campaign. When its existance became public knowledge, Obama stated his disapproval, but the damage stood.

    Did prominent bloggers and political reporters know that this was an intentional strategy on the part of the Obama campaign? Yes. At the time, I, an Obama supporter, wrote to Josh Marshall about my fear that this very divisive tactic, that I thought being pushed by overzealous "supporters," would backfire on the campaign. Marshall emailed back that actually tactic originated with the campaign (they were, he said, weighing whether they needed to dial it back).

    As I said in an earlier post, there IS real  justification for African Americans' distrust of white politicians (and sensitivity to racial coding). If there wasn't, that sensitivity couldn't be exploited.

    Racism exists. But it doesn't exist all the time in every context. Acknowledging the truth of the second statement doesn't negate the first.

    Parent

    One has to remember (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    that Jesse Jr, just like his father and Al Sharpton are in the business of using the "race card" to their own advantage.  Neither is interested in the bettering of society.

    Parent
    Axelrod: President Obama, why (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    don't you and Mr. Geithner go to Denver and Phoenix and let's give the bully pulpit to the Big Dawg.  

    Parent
    It's not up to Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:25:21 AM EST
    to make Bill rehabilitated, it's up to Bill. I would specifically point to the black community as an example.

    Parent
    Bah (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    You really want to have a fight, even if I am supporting Obama.

    enough with you.

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#31)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    it is the truth. It was the same nonsense of "once Hillary gives her speech at the DNC all of her supporters will now flock to Obama." Please.

    It wasn't Hillary's task to rehabilitate Obama's image in the eyes of her supporters it was HIS responsibility and their willingness to accept him.  Why shoudln't the same go for Bill?

    Parent

    Again you are picking a fight (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    with no one. Who said anything any different? this is my point, you are picking fights that are not there.

    Parent
    Okay, if we accept your premise (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    and take it to the next step:  Just what is that  racist supposed to do to "rehabilitate," to prove that he's not one?  And under your apparent process, who declares that the rehabilitation is done?  And above all, why remove agency, for which the civil rights movement fought, from the black community and put it back on a white man again?

    Parent
    Cream City (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    there is a difference between being a racist and saying racially insensitive things.

    When Bill Clinton compared Obama winning South Carolina to Jesse Jackson, that was racially insensitive and offensive as there were many other democrats that won South Carolina that he could have referred to.

    All I am saying is that Obama cannot rehabilitate Bill Clinton in the black community--Bill has to rehabilitate himself and maybe coming back to the black community instead of avoiding it like the plague which he did in the primaries is a start and for one I think would be appreciated.  This isn't to say that in the eyes of all blacks he will be welcomed back with open arms as you can't make everyone happy, but at least willing to talk about what happened and admit to some mistakes would be a big start.  

    Parent

    Did you find the post (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    where I said exactly that about Clinton's South Carolina comments?

    Just curious.

    Parent

    Speech is action (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    including the speech of Jesse Jackson, Jr. -- not the Sr.  That confusion in these comments is indicative, as is the unwillingness to address the sense of agency.  So I will use my agency and just recognize your sense of aggrievement -- and may it take you where you want to go.

    Parent
    Point of order on this. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    Not addressing the racial insensitivity issue, but as to this point:

    coming back to the black community instead of avoiding it like the plague which he did in the primaries

    Did Bill Clinton really avoid the black community like that plague during the primaries?  My recollection was that Bill was quite often sent as an emissary of Hillary's campaign into the black community (certainly inasmuch as majority black membership churches are a proxy for the black community) all throughout the campaign, and that the news reports of those appearances consistently showed that he was pretty well received, even after the South Carolina dustup (even though most ended up voting for Obama anyway).  Am I mistaken?

    Parent

    Actually he didn't (none / 0) (#112)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    Take a look back at where Bill Clinton went and campaigned--rural white areas. There were lots of grumbling as to why he didn't even bother to come into the urban areas and it did not go unnoticed.

    Parent
    Where is Harlem exactly? (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Amiss on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    There were lots of grumbling as to why he didn't even bother to come into the urban areas and it did not go unnoticed.

    Dang and all of this time I thought his office that he visits regularly was situated in Harlem, which is, if I am not mistaken exactly that which you say he didnt bother to come into, a urban area which is mostly AA. Why is it that you do not notice or credit him with that?

    Like BTD said, you just want to pick a fight.

    Parent

    This comment shows complete ignorance (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    of the facts.  Kendrick Meeks, among others, was part of the Clinton entourage in that South Carolina trip.  When exactly did Bill avoid the black community?  He was even going to black churches and reaching out.  Hillary went to a national meeting in New Orleans to reach out to the black community.

    Parent
    No, it wasn't (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    When Bill Clinton compared Obama winning South Carolina to Jesse Jackson, that was racially insensitive and offensive as there were many other democrats that won South Carolina that he could have referred to

    The question Bill Clinton responded to when answering that question was if he was surprised that a black man could win in South Carolina. I'm not sure what other Democrat you would have liked him to use, but he used Jesse Jackson.  

    Several times the Clintons got into trouble when stating accurate historical facts.  THAT was the Obama machine in action.  And now you say that Bill Clinton has to rehabilitate himself?  From what?

    Parent

    Well (1.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    he could have used himself- after all he won SC in 1992, or he could have used Gore in 2000 that would have worked- using Jesse Jackson was at the very least politically tone deaf- which considering the speaker (one of the most politically intuitive politicans of the last 100 years) is a poor excuse at best. - Heck if anything Gore was a better example than Jackson- he won Iowa as well- I don't recall Jesse winning Iowa to begin the race in 1984 or 1988.

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    The question posed to Bill Clinton was asking if he was surprised a black man could win in SC.  How does saying Al Gore won it answer the question?

    Parent
    Oh (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:08:40 PM EST
    and don't play innocent- "stating Historical fact" Historical facts are easy to twist, here allow me- The GOP is the party of Civil Rights- they freed the slaves, desegregated civil service (resegrated by a Dem of course), elected the vast majority of African American Senators, were the backbone of anti-lynching and Civil rights legislation and formed the clear majority of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act- heck it took a Republican president to sign MLK day into law and noone has appointed more African Americans to high-ranking government jobs than Republican Stalwart George W Bush- heck the Democratic Party has a former Klansman as a sitting senator, the GOP doesn't tolerate that sort of thing anymore.  

    All of what I just listed is true- but because it is removed from Historical context, its also highly misleading.

    Parent

    When does racial "sensitivity" become (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    another form of stereotype -- or even prejudice?

    In the early '90s a "natural" household cleaning product company would send sales people door to door in my neighborhood in the summer. One summer their representative was a young, very tall and athletic African American man. When I opened my door to his knock he went into an embarrassing routine of self-deprecating jokes to signal that I, a middle aged white woman, didn't need to be afraid of him. It was humiliating for both of us -- strangers mired in a racial history we didn't create, that had nothing to do with us as individuals, awkwardly trying to find ways to signal we had nothing to fear from each other. It struck me then that our country's racial history may, in fact, have made it harder, and more dangerous, for him to see me as individual (who wasn't afraid of him and wasn't just a stereotype) rather than the reverse. (Once we got through the awkwardness we discovered we had several acquaintances in common and I had once worked closely with his aunt.)

    African Americans indeed have lots of valid reasons for "sensitivity" -- but that doesn't mean those sensitivies are always right. Racial distrust runs both ways, everyone has an obligation to figure out when and whether it is merited or not, and everyone has an interest in condemning its exploitation.

    Some things are very understandable, but still destructive and cause for regret.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    Who'd have thunk it? The solution top our economic woes lies... WITH US? Middle-class people? Who knew! ;-)

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:49:35 AM EST
    Obama is in fact an extension of Clintonism on economic and trade policy

    I agree with you on the trade policy part.  Seems pretty obvious that the free trade (with safeguards) argument was fought and definitively settled in the 90s, and Obama is not appearing to want to reopen it.

    As for economic policy in general, I think we have to wait and see.  So far, Obama of 2009 seems to the right of Clinton in 1993 (see stimulus bill and rumblings of entitlement "reform").

    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    In a way, the economic stimulus is sui generis to the discussion of economic policy - it is an emergency measure.

    Obama has proclaimed his desire (and he delivered here) to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans, he raised the EITC, he will at least let the bush tax cuts lapse (taking us back to Clinton's tax structure.)

    I think the jury should be in and out in 5 minutes on this question

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#11)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    I guess I'd argue that 1) the problem with the inadequacy of the stimulus package is that it will create more problems down the road, i.e. it isn't sui genereis, but rather it will have negative long term consequences, 2) $13/week is technically a tax cut, I suppose, but for most people only a tax cut in name only, and 3) given the skirmishes he reportedly already has had with Pelosi regarding the Bush tax cuts, I'll believe that a complete rollback will occur only when I see it.

    Again, I grant it's too early to tell, but given the data points so far I can't say I'm optimistic that he'll be as bold as Clinton on economic policy.

    Parent

    Something can be sui generis (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    and still have long term consequences.

    As someone who has been very critical of Obama's stimulus package (its size is simply inadequate for the problem), I am comfortable with my word usage and positions here.

    Parent

    Well, call it what you will, (none / 0) (#30)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    I guess I am just of the opinion that Obama's economic policy should be judged by his legislation, and not what I think he may or may not want his economic policy to be down the road.  The stimulus bill is (well it will be later today) an actual law that reflects his economic policy, and I feel comfortable that saying that it is more reflective of Nelson/Collins than of Clinton.  I think you are saying that even though Obama seems to have gotten what he wanted in the stimulus bill, it doesn't count as being representative of his economic policy because it is only a stimulus bill.  Perhaps future legislation will prove you right, but I feel comfortable in my assessment too at this point.

    Parent
    Noooo (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    I am saying that the economic stimulus and the problem it is trying to address are sui generis and not reflective of the economic policy that Obama will be enacting.

    In short, it is an EMERGENCY measure (and inadequate for the emergency) and not a reflection a strategic economic policy.

    For example, it will not be Obama's economic policy to run trillion dollar deficits over time. In a few years, he will try to reduce the deficit, if the economy rebounds.

    Parent

    But at this point, reducing the (none / 0) (#41)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    deficit is pretty much purely hypothetical.  Policy, as least as I think of the term, isn't just long term goals, but about crafting solutions to meet the situation at hand.  

    The stimulus bill, as I see it, was an emergency measure in the sense that it was passed quickly, but it was also policy in the sense that it was (likely) the only substantive bite at the apple for dealing with the current eononomy.  Thus, to me it seems fair game as an example of his policies.

    Again, I grant that policies can change, but that's more crystal ball gazing than commenting on the facts at hand, in my opinion.

    Parent

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    But you are discussing two different economic problems.

    Indeed, conflating the two is the central flaw in the GOP critique on stimulus.

    I think you are making the same error.

    Driving up aggregate demand to avoid a deflationary depression  (stimulus) is not the same as medium and long term economic policy.

    Parent

    I don't see myself as conflating the two. (none / 0) (#66)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    I just see it as that policy can have both short and long term components.  In this instance, the short term policy is stimulus, while the long term policy may be deficit reduction or what have you.

    I guess my argument, which I imagine is quite different from the GOP argument, is that if Obama's short term policy is too far to the right (as I feel his stimulus is in that is inadquately small and tax-cut centric, and thus sadly may be ineffective or even counterproductive in the long term), then this could be indicative of a right-of-center long term economic policy as well.

    Parent

    Of course your arguments are different (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    My point, be it right or wrong, is that your approach at analyzing the stimulus is the same - from a strategic economic policy perspective.

    As I read your comment, it seems to me you are looking for economic policy that is more geared to addressing longer term economic policy.

    I think that is the wrong approach. What Obama needed to do was focus on the emergency - to wit, how to increase short term aggregate demand.

    That is why I strongly objected to the tax cuts, even the good ones, in the bill.

    We need more spending, much more spending, in the stimulus bill.

    Parent

    Sorry if that's how my comment (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:42:06 AM EST
    came off, I didn't mean it that way.  What I meant was that I think the inadequacies of Obama's short term policy (weak stimulus as opposed to strong stimulus) is a fair (seeing how it is the only one so far) benchmark in trying to determine whether Obama will be as bold as Clinton was in all aspects of his economic policy.  Of course, Obama could change, but I prefer to judge more based on past performance than on hope.

    Parent
    The question is, when the recovery comes, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    will Obama reduce the debt by cutting entitlements such as social security, as he has signaled, or will he seek to raise revenues in a growing economy as Clinton did early on in his presidency?

    If he goes after entitlements such as social security, I do not see how it could be viewed as Clintonian.  And, no, I do not count welfare reform as a parallel -- that was more Clintonian social engineering (like his targeted tax incentives) rather than entitlement reform.

    Parent

    OMG (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    Welfare Reform wasn't entitlement reform? Seriously, you can argue that with a  straight face, wow. You can argue whether it was meritorius to reform welfare or not but it was a textbook case of welfare reform.

    Parent
    Entitlement reform as a means to decrease (none / 0) (#75)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    expenditures is what I mean.  Welfare reform had little effect on the budget relatively speaking.  It was explicitly to change perceived behaviors of its recipients, whether you agree with that premise or not.

    I'm talking about entitlement reform as an explicit means of reducing debt when I refer to what Obama might do.

    Parent

    Entitlements? or Social Security? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    SS isn't an entitlement.  It's insurance.  That we've all paid into.  I find it really alarming when Democratic leaders start refering to it as an entitlement that needs to be reformed.

    Parent
    Exactly. So let's just take (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    our IRAs, too?  Both were supposed to be means to save for our futures.  That one was required of us now makes it an "entitlement"?  

    For those who did not also save and avoid great debt, let's take away where they put their money -- the McMansions, the second and third homes, etc.  Why should they be entitled to those, if I am not entitled to redeem the investment I have made for almost five decades in my retirement, SS?

    Parent

    I know what you're saying, and politically (none / 0) (#103)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    I agree it makes sense to call it "insurance" when arguing that it needs to be preserved.  But I don't find the the entitlement vs. insurance distinction meaningful when talking about how it is budgeted.  And that's the the context for the point I'm trying to make.

    Parent
    Not shocked at all (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    If you followed Nate when he was just Poblano and his website had all of 20 readers you would not be surprised with his writings right now.  He also had an excellent post on being  what he called a "rational progressive" which comes full circle with his praise of Clinton.

    Sure, he supported Obama and not Clinton during the primaries but I never thought it was because of CDS(a term that I think is rude) but more of preference.

    Completely surprising (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:25:29 AM EST
    As somneone who did follow Poblano closely, I know why I am surprised and find it hilarious that you arguie this point.

    Here's a simple test, find even ONE post by Silver that made ANY of these points in 2008. You will come up empty.

    Parent

    Also keep in mind, (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:46:44 AM EST
    Poblano was a central character on the toxic environment that drove most most Clintonites away from dKos. Among Hillary supporters, he'll be remembered as making the false accusation that "Alegre," a mainstream blogger frequently linked by on the campaign's website, was behind Hillaryis44, which at the time was a damaging charge. It was a complete fabrication.

    Parent
    Yep. Not to be trusted at all (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    but how nice for him that he has seen the light.

    Parent
    Any proof? (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    Do you have proof that she isn't or hasn't been involved with Hillaryis44? I'm not accusing her of such and if Nate/Poblano did make such a direct accusation and there is absolutely no truth to it, well then shame on him.

    Also: I would hardly call her a "mainstream blogger."  Mainstream bloggers don't link to racist sites that purport to have Michelle Obama ranting on tape about "whitey."

    Parent

    Um, how would one (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    prove she's never been to the moon?

    The charge was without evidence. Since I've blogged at her sites since the strike, I'm confident she has no link to the 44 site.

    Parent

    And, stop the guilt by association (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    I do not recall Alegre going near the Whitey tape controversy, or near anything of similar nature. Please offer evidence if you have it. Otherwise, you're just name calling.

    Parent
    One of the most repulsive things I witnessed (none / 0) (#148)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    during the primary and yet it still continues...

    Parent
    Kos, Huffington Post, and Air America. (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    I have reconsidered my political affiliations after this past election.

    Parent
    There were many of us like that (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    I wonder what the numbers are vis-a-vis how many people Obama really brought into the Democratic Party (as opposed to those who voted for the personality) as opposed to many who left from it?

    Parent
    I just tripped accross a striking number (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    In Nov., our % of white female votes fell from our historical 48 or 50% to 33%.

    To my eye, it looks to me like the largest shift our way since 2004 in the general election was among Latino voters, voters who are particularly dispassionate about Obama, but who tend to be savvy about self-interest.

    In these two specific large shifts, it's pretty obvious Hillary would have cemented better numbers with more staying power. It's no wonder she continued to out-poll everyone through Nov.

    We've inherited a mixed bag, for sure.

    Parent

    Not necessarily true (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    Obama also recorded the highest percentage of the white male vote of anyone since 1972- its why according to the article you cited Obama and Bill Clinton recieved the same 43 percent of the white vote. Additonally, Obama had a higher percentage of the youth vote and higher AA turnout than any canidate in recent memory- to pretend Hillary would have not just have outperformed Obama in his weak spot, but also somehow perserved his strength is specious reasoning.

    Parent
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Is this a sort of gameplaying, where we conflate Clinton's 3-way race with Obama's 2-way race in order to conclude that Obama had the highest percentage since 1972?

    Parent
    That's not what I said. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    It is clear that Obama had strengths that benefited him beyond the implosion in GOP ID, but it's also true that what happened with women and Hispanics, two critical current and future Dem demos are not people Obama brought into the process. On one hand, women were alienated. On the other hand, Latinos, who solidly opposed him in the primary, but who were crucial to his 8% Nov. win, are not part of his alleged new voters.

    It is true true that Obama expanded the black and youth votes, but a skeptic would point out that young voters are notoriously unreliable, and the AA vote is stable, rather than growing rapidly like the Latino vote.

    I think the DP dodged a bullet with Latinos, since their partisan identification has been fluid.

    Here are the CNN numbers:

    1. Latino (8%) 44% Bush, 53% Kerry
    2. Latino (9%) 67% Obama, 31% McCain

    In 2004, 121 million people voted. In 2008, 125.2 million people voted. Approximately 2.4 million more Latinos voted for Obama than for Kerry, a large fraction of the '08 8.5 million vote margin, about a third of it.

    Another number to keep in mind is that GOP ID fell by 5%, about 6.3 million votes.

    Obama did a great job, but he didn't win by expanding our registration, he won by tectonics.

    Parent

    Alegre (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    was in no way "mainstream" she was one of the more high profile sufferers of ODS, while she wasn't behind Hillaryis44 she did echo that lunatic mindset in many ways.

    Parent
    She was a thoughtful person who had much (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    to contribute, beginning before the primary wars.  That site suffered materially when people like her were driven away.

    Parent
    Oh I agree (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    in the pre-primary period she was very readable, her ODS during the primary and even more acutely in the post-primary era was such that it overwhelmed almost any insights she had.

    Parent
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    IMO

    Parent
    Fair enough (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    You can read her despite her ODS, to me it was like reading Andrew Sullivan and ignoring his CDS.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    Please point to an example.

    Parent
    A hallmark of Clinton's era was the early (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    budget vote that included tax increases, which along with the tech boom generated surpluses.  Obama is, by virtue of circumstances admittedly, playing on the other side of the field.

    It remains to be seen whether Obama will have the stomach to run surpluses if and when the economy recovers, to start to retire this massive debt, rather than give in to the tax-cut-supporting "moderates."

    To Nate Silver: (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by joanneleon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:19:05 AM EST
    "Duh.  You just figured this out now?"

    I'm not sure if he really did just figure this out, or if he was completely disingenuous during the primaries.

    In either case, attacking the Clinton presidency, ignoring its successes, and praising Reagan policies was one of the most assinine and/or dishonest things that happened during the Obama/Clinton primaries.

    Those who did it have no credibility.  And, before they come out with sermons about the a robust middle class and the economic successes during the Clinton years have a lot of explaining to do before they dare to just switch their point of view and start siding with Clinton.  They did tremendous damage.  They need to make amends.

    Why would I ever trust a person who was absolutely vicious and dead wrong, who now, for self-serving reasons writes with flowery language as if he always believed that Bill Clinton had it right all along.  Nate Silver and Jed Lewison have no credibility on this subject.  None.  Nada. Zilch.

    If you can state the obvious in (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lobary on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    forty three paragraphs and three charts and graphs, you might just be a genius. Ever thought about starting a blog?

    Ugh. I find both Silver and Sirota to be insufferably boring, self-obsessed writers who take pleasure in making an unending series of circles around the bowl before finally going down.

    I don't know how BTD has the patience to untangle this little blog pissing contest and break it down for us non-navel gazers...

    Parent

    I skip the graphs (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    and extraneous stuff.

    I am learned in this from reading legal opinions.

    Parent

    Both Nate and Sirota should (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    ... issue major mea culpas. Recall, the Obama coalition, such as it was, was largely African American and upper middle class/white/liberal. A solid majority of working class and lower income Democrats voted against Dave's and Nate's candidate, bucking the onslaught of new media and traditional media pro-Obama bias. (Open question: why didn't the tidal wave media buys and positive unpaid media actually convert into votes among working class Dems?).

    The economically vulnerable people who voted for Clinton were especially articulate, and knew they were being dismissed and insulted by the party and the bulk of its pundits (Sirota famously implied that Hillary won states based on racism).

    Parent

    Yes of course! (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    Because blacks aren't "economically vulnerable" or "articuluate."

    Thanks!!!

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    You have to look really hard to find things to get offended about.  It must be hard to be you.

    And you should only be partly offended by that.  Because my comment is partly exasperation and partly compassion.  Unless you're offended by compassion as well.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    did you not describe the coalitions of Obama and Clinton using those terms?

    If you do not see that as offensive I'm really sorry. And no, I did not find anything compassionate as to how you described the coalitions.

    Parent

    Who is talking about coalitions? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    My compassion is for you personally.  cotton candy.  As is the exasperation.  

    And for the record, the answer is no.  I did not describe any coalitions in those terms.

    Parent

    Wow^2 (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    Take a look at what I actually wrote:

    "The economically vulnerable people who voted for Clinton were especially articulate, and knew they were being dismissed and insulted by the party and the bulk of its pundits (Sirota famously implied that Hillary won states based on racism)."

    I did not actually mention the economically vulnerable people who voted for Obama. Again, a large majority of lower-income primary voters did not vote for Obama.

    What I was thinking, if you must know, is that I had endless conversations with working class voters of all description who supported Hillary, and were hands-down the most well-informed voters I have seen on any campaign since I started doing this in the early '90s. I contrasted this for myself with Obama supporters I'd chat with who generally had no idea about his record or his policies, and tended to be less-informed than voters on other campaigns I've been on - of course, radio shock jocks and late night comedians had endless fun with this phenomenon.

    Simply, working class voters tended to have specific, gritty economic reasons to vote, and the bulk of Obama voters were concerned with loftier reforms of the system. I don't blame Obama voters, but I do blame pundits like Sirota and Silver for their sneering treatment of voters who aren't university-credentialed. You don't  argue that Democractic voters are racist, as Sirota did, without apologizing for it.

    Parent

    In fairness to Sirota (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    Its hard to explain the proportion of Clinton's victories in WV and KY without using racism to a degree (not entirely- as you stated lower income voters did to a much smaller degree, prefer Hillary in some states)- why was her share of the lower income vote so much larger in WV and Ky than it was in WI, OR, or even states such as NY and AR where she also won by sizable majorities (states where she presumably had a much closer connection to the voters as well)?

    Parent
    This is an interesting discussion... (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    It's veering off-topic, but that's okay.

    I was in a working class town in Oregon. Both Oregon and Kentucky voted in the same day, are about the same population, and had similar turn-out, despite Oregon's usually much-higher vote-by-mail turn-out. The net gain for the two states was over 100,00 for HRC. KY's voters were more energized than OR's were. Although HRC was blown-out in OR, I had the sense that OR's mediocre turnout came from ambivalence, that after months of campaigning, Hillary wasn't all that bad after all. My personal experience was that OR Obama supporters were mellow and open to Hillary. They were not the true-believers who thought HRC was dirty and/or racist I saw elsewhere.

    Obama did not quite mop up the demographics in OR. He roughly split the non-college educated vote, but took 2/3 of the 46% who had degrees, so there's a large factor.

    Nationally, HRC took about 2/3 of some minority groups (all non-AA that I can think of), numbers that mirror her numbers among whites with Scots-Irish ancestry (think Jim Webb or John Murtha) whose families came from the hills of Ohio and below. (As Sen. Webb points out, this large group is not linked closely with former slave-owning regions or families, for what it's worth).

    The best explanation for Hillary's strengths are based on culture and class, not race. It might have been Michael Lind who pointed out that Northern states with puritan, reformist roots voted differently than other states, and btw, this effect was exaggerated since many of them had caucuses, that had average 18% over-performance (relative to primaries in the four states that had both) for Obama.

    What I saw, immersed for months in Hispanic networks, that supported Hillary by up to 75%, was that race was not an issue at all, something similar to what I saw with the smaller number of working class whites I met in rural Oregon. What I did see was that working class voters of all ethnic groups perceived mutual respect with Hillary that they did not with Obama, just like white collar liberals perceived mutually respectful cultural signs from Obama.

    And BTW, in my own CA enclave, race was an issue. In my circles of well-educated friends and families, race was openly a reason to vote for Obama.

    Parent

    That's really a demographics issue (none / 0) (#171)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:27:54 PM EST
    My first question would be whether WV has a larger percentage of low income voters than some other states and how that stands against other (presumably white) states with a similar percentage of low income voters.

    I would guess that WV's income profile probably matches up closer to southern states than northern states.

    Parent

    Oh, yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    I temporarily forgot that Obama almost ignored West Virginia during the primaries.  It was like his campaign wrote off the entire state as a lost cause.

    That did not please me and I do not even live in WV.  I wonder how the WVians took it that Obama pounded the pavement in PA and barely took notice of the next state over?

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    in fairness, Obama's volunteers in the state recieved a rather ugly reception- I mean well outside the norm that either canidates surrogates got at the height of primary polarization.

    Parent
    Cultural sensitivity might help (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    next time.

    Just a suggestion.

    Parent

    Along with that (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    Maybe the voters of WV and KY were angry about being written off by the national media because "the race was over - she couldn't catch up" and were tired of being portrayed by that same media and many Obama supporters as dumb, backwoods, racist hicks?

    Parent
    Same with Puerto Rico (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by Pacific John on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    Obama, the party and the MSM treated Hispanics as invisible and/or irrelevant while they were painting other Hillary voters as ignorant racists.

    Can't imagine why people would take offense to that.

    Parent

    But even controlling for income (none / 0) (#174)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    Clinton won out of proportion in WV and Ky compared to say Montana a state with similar income distrubution and similarily homogenous racial makeup. (also similarily dependent on extraction industries- and in terms of Senate representation similarily historically blue- the GOP senator who lost in 2006- Burns- was MTs first multiterm Repub in recent memory)

    Parent
    One of the consequences ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    ...  of not having a real left in this country is that we don't have a functional discourse about what it means to be left, or what the history is.

    Not to trash Silver, then, but it's a little unsettling to have a "rational vs. radical" distinction (as if the two were in some way inherently contradictory), great data on income distribution with Bill Clinton, and the claim that Sirota favors a Stalin-esque worker's state -- all in one article.

    It just seems like growing pains, to me, and if Sirota's Karl Marx then Madonna is Rosa Luxemburg. "Take what you like and leave the rest" applies powerfully to all these postings, and will for a long time, until the growing pains are done with.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    I thought the whole rational v radical stuff was empty drivel.

    The stuff I endorsed is quoted in my post.

    I guess I may need to make a disclaimer in thes things,, if I do not quote it or expressly adopt it, do not assume I have a view on it.

    In this case, I thought that stuff from Silver was silly and useless and I choose to ignore it.

    Parent

    Empty drivel? (none / 0) (#47)
    by lobary on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:24 AM EST
    Waaa? From the mind behind PECOTA? Not possible.

    Parent
    With drugs many things (none / 0) (#120)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    are possible.

    Even in baseball, as it turns out...possibly in forecasting?  In which case, is Griffey coming back to Seattle or not?

    Parent

    Griffey (none / 0) (#132)
    by lobary on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    Supposedly he's about to sign with the Bravos de Atlanta.

    Parent
    Amen to that (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Farmboy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    I've been going on about the definition of progressive for a while now.  The term has been applied to so many movements over the centuries that you could use it for a dessert topping and a floor wax - and be correct both times.

    Mr. Silver's attempt was flawed IMHO because as you say, having progressive ideals isn't a "vs." situation, but rather a menu scenario: "I'll take workers' rights from column one, universal healthcare from column two, and a side of education reform to go, please.  Oh, and deliver it to my company, Progressives R Us."

    Parent

    "Progressive" to me... (none / 0) (#92)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    is like "speed" as opposed to velocity.

    Progress in what direction? Why?

    Parent

    And in addition, other folks are using it (none / 0) (#133)
    by Farmboy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    to describe: motive, destination, means, magnitude, ethical standards, moral standards... as Humpty said, a word means what I say it means.

    I happen to think the term has reared its head (and I think Mr. Silver touched on this) because what folks are really doing is pointing to the right and saying loudly, "I'm NOT with them."  "Oh, so you're a Liberal." Knee-jerk reaction to denigrated term occurs and, "Um, no, I'm a Progressive." pops out.

    Parent

    This takes the cake (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by lobary on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    In an update to one of his posts, Silver writes:

    You know what, this has obviously gotten a little carried away. The problem with Sirota is that his arguments are self-righteous, accusatory, and oversimplistic. Here, we generally aim for nuance and poise. To the extent that this post has not reflected that spirit, my apologies.

    Oh, my.

    Oh, my is correct. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    I think blogs should be required to have a warning label.

    Warning. Opinions have been known to cause headaches, nausea, and vomiting.

    Parent

    A year ago Obama, (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    and Nate Silver and David Sirota, among others who shall remain nameless, were all running down Bill Clinton.  I responded at the time here.  I didn't even get into the economic part of the Clinton years because that part was not getting attacked as much as other aspects of his presidency.  i think the longer Obama is in office the more the Clinton years will be gradually accepted as "good Democratic years" by their erstwhile detractors among the lefty blogosphere intelligentsia.

    If Obama (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:20:10 AM EST
    is going to match Clinton's performance he better get busy.

    Parent
    Instead of letting (none / 0) (#127)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    the Bush tax rates expire, he should call for rescinding them now?

    Parent
    Democrats are not good at defending their own (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    which is the main reason Republicans so often beat Democrats and their proposals, even though poll after poll shows that a majority of the public agrees with Democrats on most issues. Just compare the Republican project to create a Reagan legacy with Democrats' allowing their guys (Clinton, Gore, Kerry) to be trashed by both the media and the right.

    Even now Democrats are allowing Republicans to dominate our public policy debate with their focus-group tested talking points. Dems have done a lousy job of countering all the anti-stimulus bill spin. Only the fact that the public cannot miss the fact that our economy is in terrible trouble keeps a majority supporting the bill.

    Parent

    I think the Clinton years (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    were relatively good, but most of Sirota's criticism is of the sort Obama now gets from Krugman- valid criticism from the left flank.

    Parent
    I disagree. Sirota often puts Clinton on (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    an equal par with Republicans when it seems inappropriate to do so.  The whole premise of Hostile Takeover is that Republicans and Democrats teamed up to allow big business to take over the government.  What seems to me a necessary implication of Sirota's claim in that book is that Clinton and Bush are no different in that regard.  In reality, big business and Republicans colluded to wreck Hillary's initial healthcare reform efforts.  Nicholas Confessore has a decent discussion of that and other issues where Republicans used K Street to their advantage here.

    I think Sirota would have done better to lay the blame for the hostile takeover mostly at the feet of Republicans, which he actually previously did here.

    I think he has late stage CDS that clouds his judgment and limits his ability to see the facts as they are.

    Parent

    What many of the posters here (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    are forgetting, or overlooking, is that a President only has the joy stick in his hands for 4/8 years. To say that a policy, introduced "on Clinton's Watch", which has been found years later to have some negative results, is now his fault is just plain silly. Since many programs are adjusted and/or modified over time, but a President's term is limited, one can't know if, or how, he might have changed it once the deficiencies were discovered.

    Trade policy is just one example. Many people blame Clinton for "shipping millions of jobs overseas" yet he's no longer in office to make whatever modifications were necessary as global trade proliferated. Increased international trade is inevitable, and an intelligent administration would have adjusted its actions accordingly.

    Unfortunately, we got eight years of GWB instead, and he simply didn't give a damn for our workers, or their jobs.  


    Nice to see the Big Dog vindicated. (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    I always knew he would be. History will judge him kindly. To some of the posters above I find it amazing how many of you still cannot accept the fact that the Obama camp played the race card against the Clintons' and their supporters repeatedly during the primary. Obama himself even admitted it during one of the debates and stated some of his surrogates took things too far after one of the moderators held up a campaign memo sent out by his NC campaign staff to the media. Funny how the media glossed over that fact.

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    I don't see how what the Obama camp did was any more objectionable than what the Clinton camp did to him- for every "race card" example you could list people who backed Obama could find a similar "gender card" example, to pretend like one side was somehow far more egregious than the other is just delusional- both sides had both rational and irrational cases for their respective candiate and against their resepective opponents, the ability of some people to pretend only their side had a logical case is laughable at best and detatched from reality at worst.

    Parent
    Question on the timing (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    Did all this dialogue occur before or after Bill's interview.  i.e. did he have to appear to brown-nose before all the love started flowing?

    Good Lord, this thread is depressing. (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    Nothing, and I mean nothing, has changed since a year or two ago.

    I don't know where truth has gone...

    It's still there. (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:20:49 PM EST
    It just has to stay in its room unless there's a reason for it to be paraded about for someone's benefit.

    Why couldn't these people talk up the successes of the last two term Democratic President when Obama was running?  Why is it only convenient now?

    Parent

    Agree. (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    I agree completely. Reading this thread has me in tears. Where do we go from here, really? I mean, I can't see a way forward.

    Parent
    It would have been nice (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    if last June or so supporters on both sides could have admitted that they went too far, but the die hards on each end seem bound and determined to keep up the fiction that their camp (whoever it may be) was somehow pure and logical while the otherside was a collection of irrational zombies (be it "youth voters" for Obama or "hard working white people" for Clinton).

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    Perhaps.

    You ready to confess to something?

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    I went a little over the top in my support of the canidate I felt was both the most electable and the most in tune with my own values.

    Interestingly, I think the schism between supporters- once you throw out each sides respective identiy politics sides- occured over which you valued more hgighly domestic or international politics- the international politics progressive people went overwhelmingly to Obama (with some exceptions) and the domestic politics progressives went overwhelmingly to Clinton (again with some exceptions)- this prioritization was reflected demographically as well- Younger Dems tended logically (in terms of self-interest) viewed Irag et al as more important than Health Care while Older Dems logically (again in terms of self-interest) did the opposite- just as their are a lot of older dems who viewed Obama's waivering and collection of Chicago school types as deal killers, myself and statistically a significant majority of people around my age were turned off by Hillary's more hawkish perspective on foreign affairs-(think 1968 through 1972 RFK-McCarthy-McGovern base- this time with a more electable canidate* excepting RFK). There will be a very good book written on the values schism and how it lines generationally (or with age as this same split was present for a lot of the people who took the opposite side this time around).

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#163)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    Tribalism is very powerful I guess.

    Parent
    BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    I have a great memory.  I will never forget those who villified the Clintons, including Nate and Sirota, as well as the Kossacks/Huffingtonites.
    I hear that Randi Rhodes may go off the air.  Maybe Limbaugh could follow her.

    Heard once (none / 0) (#33)
    by nellre on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    Concerning divorce: If both sides are unhappy, you've reached a fair settlement.

    Same applies to politics: if nobody is happy you've probably achieved a good balance.

    That may be true (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    But a good balance doesn't necessarily equal good policy.

    Parent
    That sounds a little like Debbie Howell (none / 0) (#84)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    at the WaPo:  "Well I've pissed off both liberals and conservatives.  Journalistic job well done!"

    Parent
    What about m3 growth? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:42:08 AM EST
    A lot of fuel for the current crisis was let out through the Fed into the private sector under his watch (Greenspan and Hillary sitting buddy buddy back then - yea, hard evidence).

    All this talk of how the middle class was doing in the 90s ignores that his policies would eventually be damning.  

    Not blaming the whole crisis on Clinton - just identifying the costs of those gains and assessing in the long run.

    When we look back and think that Clinton balanced the budget and the middle class was doing alright - we can't just go assume it's because his policies were sustainable!  One must account for any of the recessionary pains which were being guaranteed by the Fed during his administration.  Start subtracting some of these bailout stats from the federal budget in the 90s and see how well he was doing (though I support businesses failing privately).

    Sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    You gotta be kidding me.

    Parent
    Not in the least. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    What do you mean?  I'm not saying Bill Clinton caused the recession - I'm saying that credit expansion caused the recession - and that the economic numbers under Clinton happened during credit expansion.  

    More expansion then happened under Bush.

    Imagine the economy is like a business - and you actually want to know your costs.

    Parent

    You are stating that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    Because there was credit expansion in the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency, it helped cause the economic crisis we have today. Well, hell, why not throw in the credit expansion from 1982 to 1989 while you are at it.

    I repeat, you must be kidding me.

    Parent

    Give me one more read... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    I'm stating that "Because there was credit expansion in the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency" we should not draw conclusions on Bill Clinton's economic policies without accounting for their longterm effect.

    I'm not trying to a pin a Dem, I'm critiquing the analytical structure of this guys argument.  Clearly a lot more goes into rating the economic success of the Clinton years than the Federal budget and real wages just within those 8 years.  

    "Well, hell, why not throw in the credit expansion from 1982 to 1989 while you are at it." - Because I'm not drawing conclusions, I'm illustrating the fault in the conclusion of others.  I don't need to include 1982-1989 for the sake of my argument since I was discussing the fault in Nate's methods - not setting forth my own analysis.  If I were to do a full critique of the Clinton years I would certainly include data from before his administration as economic structures are inter temporal - which is the entire basis of my critique on Nate.  

    Parent

    I suggest that your argument (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    would be better received by me if you evaluated all economic performance with the same brush.

    As I now understand your argument, fiscal policy means nothing to economic performance.

    The only thing that matter is money supply.

    Which seems an insane proposition to forward right now.

    Interest rates are 0. The spigots are wide open. Monetary policy could not be looser.

    And yet, here we are.

    Parent

    I'm evaluating the analysis you posted by Nate. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    I gave an example of why it may be short-sighted - it takes no account of the Fed during that period and any longterm results it's actions may have had.  

    "The only thing that matter is money supply." I've never said that.  I said that it was a root cause.  I did not mean to say that x, y, z are irrelevant - can not have any affect - I was saying that we can't look at x, y, z and rate an 8 year presidency without examining the longterm affects of and on the money supply.

    Clearly fiscal policy has a lot to do with economic performance - it was one of the two ways in which the government can inflate the money supply - which you correctly categorized as significant in my view.

    "Which seems an insane proposition to forward right now.

    Interest rates are 0. The spigots are wide open. Monetary policy could not be looser.

    And yet, here we are. "

    Yes - inflating the money supply - is done by lowering the interest rate.  Investors see that funds are cheap and begin many longterm capital projects they would have otherwise not seen as profitable.  This floods the market with high demand for many construction goods which then go into short supply, raising costs.  Simultaneously, consumers begin to see that their wealth is not nearly as high as stated and begin to save.  When this occurs over decades you end up with unprofitable industries which need to be liquidated in order to restore economic efficiency.  Spending more money now - this loose policy - will only maintain this inefficient structure and prevent liquidation and the return of real growth (which means actual productive capacity).  

    Parent

    The prime rate was in the 5-7 percent range. (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    The prime interest rate was higher during Clinton's tenure than it was during Bush's.

    The average was 6.75%.  If you borrowed money, you had to pay it back with a sizable interest rate.
    During Bush's tenure, Greenspan lowered the prime rate to 1% after Sept 11 under the guise of preventing a "panic" as a result of the attacks.
    The 1% prime rate was held between the end of 2001 and the middle of 2004.  "Cheap" money flooded the market under Bush's tenure.  There was no cheap money during Clinton's tenure.  Also, Greenspan said no to spending the surplus on healthcare and infrastructure, he did support massive deficit spending on anything and everything including tax cuts for the wealthiest during Bush's tenure.

    Parent

    Prime Rate is not Funds Rate (none / 0) (#178)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    Though the thrust of your argument remains - Prime rate floats about 3% higher than the Fed Funds (which is the famous greenspan 1% 2003 stat)

    I'll contend that the market didn't crash simply because 9/11 happened but that the recession which had already begun was going to turn into a market correcting "deflationary spiral" if we didn't pump credit through the Fed.  What would have fueled such a spiral - not raw fear generated fear generated fear but over-investment in inefficient economic structures in the years past.

    Considering the evidence - it is quite possible that a set prime rate of 5 to 7 percent was still too low as borrowing and investment were proven to be too high years later.

    OR

    Once could possibly argue a free market rate would have been roughly equivalent - claiming "irrational exuberance" caused some of this bubble behavior (which I do not agree with but...).

    Either way - my point was that we cannot judge Bill's policies within the 8 year vacuum with 3 variables like Nate.

    Parent

    As a matter of record... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    you insinuated that I employ hypocritical analytical methods - if you wouldn't mind giving an example I'll look into it.  

    "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." - Henry Hazlitt (author of Economics in One Lesson)

    Parent

    Amazing how CDS dovetails with (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    right wind talking points.  This was all over the place in the primaries, except that it was right wing talking points from the 1990s.  This is current, Bush-excusing stuff here.

    Parent
    I was a Hillary vote... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    ya clown.  Stop labeling people like I just did you.

    Parent
    Forgive me for assuming CDS (none / 0) (#95)
    by Joelarama on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:45:42 AM EST
    when you talked about :Greenspan and HIllary sitting buddy-buddy" back then.  It's a non sequitur (she was first lady) and untrue, and thus I assumed CDS.

    CDS aside, I disagree with the premise that Clinton had any proximate hand in the current economic crisis, and I find it weird that you think so.  

    I can't tell whether you are a Hillary clown (like me during the primary) or an Obama clown (like me now), because I don't know you.  I just go by what you say in your comment, with which I am completely bemused, and which I have heard mainly out of the mouths of Republican clowns on cable news.

    Parent

    What's CDS? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    I did not mean to assert that Clinton is to blame for the crisis - but it certainly did not form just under the war criminal's watch.  

    The point of my post was not to Clinton bash - I was trying to elevate the level of analysis above Nate's garbage.  You can't rate any economic performance on that year's numbers alone - you must follow the effects outwards overtime and see how they affect all groups.

    I promise that Hillary sat next to Greenspan - here's an article referencing it though I don't represent it's analysis http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544240.

    Parent

    Maybe Bill can explain (none / 0) (#54)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    how Obama intends to untie and save bundled mortgages that have been resold 64 times.

    This is a straw man (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:03:19 AM EST
    The underlying mortgage is the key, not the holders down the line.

    HOLC can work.

    Parent

    I've heard Bill discuss (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    this.  He is as much of a policy wonk on this as he is on most other issues.  When Bill Clinton explains this you feel like an expert has boiled it down to the essentials and made sense of it all.  

    Parent
    Now THAT is something (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    I would like to hear.  Is that talk available on-line?

    Parent
    Not on tape that I know of. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    But I think he did discuss some economic issues when he was on The View last September.

    Parent
    Sorry. I meant not online. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    Not on tape either.  It was at a private fundraiser.

    Parent
    LOL oh man (none / 0) (#59)
    by SOS on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    did you catch Starbucks CEO Shultz today?

    "We Believe Instant Coffee will be the . . ."

    CDS is way overblown... (none / 0) (#184)
    by BigElephant on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    Most Clintonistas have a complex about what they view as CDS.  Bill Clinton in the Dem primaries is one of them.  To this day I think he is one of the greatest presidents ever, but he is not flawless, and he was a liability in the primary.  While some Clintonistas don't like to hear this, it's just the truth.  

    I just find it sad that one can't say anything against Bill w/o there being an uproar from the Clintonistas.  

    And we should also be clear that when we talk about the economic plan between presidents, we're really talking about their advisors.  The job of a good president is to ask good questions, and build consensus.  They don't come up with policy.  Don't mistake Bill's (or Obama's) great economic policies with their own brilliance.  Rather it was their ability to get the right people in the right jobs and ask the right questions.  And I should note that those are important skills in their own right, but they are very different.  

    The problem is (5.00 / 8) (#186)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    I just find it sad that one can't say anything against Bill w/o there being an uproar from the Clintonistas.

    The "uproar" comes from the constant repeating of lies that have been debunked time and time again (See: "Fairy tale", "Jesse Jackson" etc.)

    There is enough stuff out there to criticize Bill Clinton for, but the fact that these lies, repeated by those in the so-called MSM, probably cost HRC the nomination, and the fact that they are constantly repeated by some commenters here, accounts for what you call an "uproar".

    Parent

    Not to mention that for me, at least, (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    as soon as someone refers to HRC supporters as "Clintonistas," "Hilltards," "Hillbots," etc. I believe that person has made his or her bias pretty clear.

    Sure, there were rabid, cult-like supporters on both sides, but ascribing such negative terminology to them did - and does - a disservice to the much larger number of supporters who were not like that.

    I mean, is it really that hard to type "Clinton supporters" instead of "Clintonistas?"  Or "Obama supporters" instead of "Obots?"

    Parent

    Obots vs Clintonistas (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by BigElephant on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    I mean, is it really that hard to type "Clinton supporters" instead of "Clintonistas?"  Or "Obama supporters" instead of "Obots?"

    But indeed there is a difference between a Clintonista and a Clinton supporter.  I'm a Clinton supporter, but not a Clintonista.  I voted for Obama in the primary.  But against any other politician I would have voted for Hillary.  I'm not rabid in my support of Hillary nor Bill (which is probably obvious since I didn't vote for her), but I also think she is pretty incredible.

    Likewise with Obama.  While I voted for Obama I didn't make up my mind until New Hampshire.  Additionally, I don't dislike Hillary.  I don't think Hillary is naive, incompetent, evil, disingenuous, or snarky -- all things you typically hear about Obama on this blog.  

    The distinction between a Clintonista/Obot and a simple supporter is that the supporter can see through the political games (and if you don't think both of them played games with voters and the media, you may be a Clintonista/Obot) and realize that they had preference based generally on specific legislation.  The Clintonista/Obot is simply part of the game.  

    There are some people on this site who aren't Clintonistas (and certainly there are no Obots), but they're fewer between than one would hope.  

    Parent

    The debunked lies?? (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by BigElephant on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:53:20 PM EST
    I'm not familiar with how the Jesse Jackson was debunked nor the Fairy Tale comment.  There was no lie associated with them.  They were just statements.  Now you could interpret them to mean different things, but you can't say that he didn't say them.  You could just "argue" what he meant by them.  

    He certainly evoked Jesse Jackson in this interview:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw

    And he does use the term Fairy Tale in this response:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

    The Fairy Tale statements seems completely harmless.  He gets some of his facts wrong (in particular, Obama's speech never came off of his website, that was debunked), but I don't think the use of the term "Fairy Tale" is derogatory in any way.

    The Jesse Jackson comment is a bit different.  Most black people I knew thought it was a racist statement.  Half of the white people I knew thought there wasn't much to it -- he was just stating a fact.

    Who's right?  Both.  Racial code words are completely a function of environment and personal situation. If you were offended by it then you were.  If you weren't then you weren't.  There's nothing to debunk or to disprove.  It was a factually accurate statement, but that was never the argument.  


    Parent

    Damned funny comment (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    For all the single mothers in the 90s (none / 0) (#202)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    I was a single mother in the 80s and believe me there was no public health insurance safety net for working mothers. Which is why I voted for Clinton. I don't hold him responsible for health care reform's failure -- it had a lot of enemies in BOTH parties. In fact I give him a lot of credit for trying -- and would point out that SCHIP got started under Clinton, in 1997. He deserves some credit for that (by the time SCHIP was available I was well past needing it).

    I don't know why people always focus on economics and foreign policy -- where Clinton was a huge improvement over his predecessors. For me, his weakness was civil liberties.

    I detested Bush I's constant harping on how he wanted to increase the number of federal crimes subject to the death penalty to, what was it, 40 something? Then Clinton gets into office and does him better by applying the death penalty to over 50 federal crimes. Now that was the worst kind of "pandering."