home

Burnishing Bill Clinton's Reputation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:24:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember this?

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." - Barack Obama, January 2008

President Obama wishes he could do what Bill Clinton did at this point. Dreams of "transformation" are long gone. Some people are noticing how good Clinton looks in comparison:

[E]ven though Clinton enjoyed political and economic advantages that Obama does not, his no-compromises strategy had some clear advantages. Unlike Obama, he refused to let the threat of default set the national agenda. Because he would not enter into negotiations over the debt ceiling, the issue barely roused the public consciousness. On November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”

To be sure, Clinton did tack to the center during this period. (In the middle of the debt ceiling battle, he gave the State of the Union speech in which he announced, “The era of big government is over.”) But “he made clear how far he would go and how far he would not go,” says Haas. Obama, in contrast, never “laid down any believable bottom line. He has not enunciated any marker that everyone knows that he is going to stick to. What you might think is compromise, is frankly capitulation.”

I stick to my view that the key mistake was last December, when the Bush tax cuts were extended without raising the debt ceiling.

Speaking for me only

< Geithner | Madman Negotiating And Negotiating With Madmen >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Burnishing Bill Clinton's Reputation | 185 comments (185 topical)
    thanks for the red meat BTD (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    So funny to see that quote about Reagan again. How much clarity and optimism are you feeling today?

    What political advantages? (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    Bill Clinton won the presidency after three crushing Democratic defeats.  And in '94, after midterm loses, he'd been all but written off by most pundits.

    Clinton was far from perfect.  And I often didn't agree with him on policy.  But every political advantage he had was of his own making.

    It's Obama who has had everything handed to him on a silver (banker sponsored) platter.

    You are so right about Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by klassicheart on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:34:35 PM EST
    He was a giant.  Obama is a gnat.  But history is easily changed these days

    Parent
    Come on, I cannot even go that far (1.50 / 2) (#14)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    Clinton had a roaring economy that was not his doing.  He deliver competent management of the public sector and contributed in some way, but the economy was soaring and he benefitted from good timing.  In fact, most of the growth during his term was phony (debt, housing, dot com, etc.).

    Obama had the worst economy since the great depression waiting for him when he took the oath.

    Let's not go overboard here.

    Parent

    Do you remember the nineties? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    Because it sure doesn't sound like it.

    Parent
    Sure I do. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    I also remember what happened immediately after it ended: the dot com bubble bursting; the corporate governance scandals (companies overstating results); consumer debt bubble burst; housing bubble burst from policies passed during Clinton and Bush Presidencies; etc.

    You have to look at long-term trends.

    Parent

    I'll take the 22 million jobs ... (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    created during the Clinton era over this any day.

    Parent
    This is dull thinking (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    You need to ask why 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Presidency and why jobs have been lost during the Obama Presidency.  If Clinton presided during bubble years, and passed policies that blew them up further, and then they finally popped after he left office (the biggest being the housing bubble that happened just before Obama took office) leaving a mess for his predessessors then no, it is not something we should brag about.  Clinton would not have created 22 million jobs if he served as President 2009 - 2016.  

    It is dull to only look at the jobs that were created 1993 - 2000 ignoring why they were created and what happened after he left IMO.

    Parent

    IT Sector growth ... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    was not obliterated by the dot com bust.  Nor were major government bailouts required.  It wasn't great.  I lost some clients.  But the major dot com players (e.g. ebay, amazon, google, etc.) barely lost a step.  And the IT sector remains healthy and growing to this day.

    Same cannot be said for the financial services/housing bust.


    Parent

    h1b visas (none / 0) (#141)
    by dandelion on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    One million h1b visas granted during the Bush administration did a lot to undercut the growth in IT wages, even if the sector and its profits continued to grow.

    That was a specific policy enacted after corporations complained about IT costs connected to the Y2K fix.

    So it wasn't just that the dot.com bubble burst -- it was specific govt policy to reduce IT employment costs.

    Parent

    I don't totally agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    but even if you're 100% correct.  The dot com bust wasn't even in the same universe as the recent busts.

    Parent
    Just (none / 0) (#83)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    heard a report on the news about our current dot com bubble with overvaluing social media sites.  Who owns that one?

    Parent
    You seem to forget (none / 0) (#193)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 05:26:31 PM EST
    conveniently that there were 8 years of the Bush presidency between Presidents Clinton & Obama.

    Parent
    I remember the Bush/Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    campaign.  I went to both of their events in Denver.  Bill Clinton had his in the Civic Center Amphitheater/Park.  Bush had his downtown in front of a beautiful historic office building -- which was more than 50% vacant due to the collapse of the domestic oil and gas business.  Denver was all oilmen in that era and the first Bush recession nearly did us in.  

    Roaring economy my a$$.  Why do you think the guiding principle behind the Clinton campaign was "It's the economy, stupid"?

    Geez, the twisting of history is ridiculous.

    Parent

    I should have waved, sj (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    The 1992 event in Civic Center with then candidate Bill Clinton still is vibrant in my memory. My sister & I waited & waited; and, it was worth it.

    'Agree with you about others' faint memories of the times. That was the old "how much does a gallon of milk cost" Bush the Elder time. But, perhaps, some who forget don't want facts to get in the way to make their points. Just perhaps.

    Parent

    Ha! You remind me (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    that there always was a wait, when it was waiting for Bill Clinton.  

    But in '92, when we got to finally see him at an event, too, I recall also seeing how long it took him to leave the hall -- shaking every hand, stopping to listen to hundreds (but each of us feeling as if it was just the two of us, with his extraordinary focus) -- and realizing that he would be even later to the next event. Sorry if that one was yours!:-)

    Parent

    Regarding that extraordinary focus: (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    After the event, Clinton waded into the crowd (much to the consternation of the Secret Service) for that handshake walk.  I didn't shake his hand -- I was about two or three people away -- but the force of his personality was absolutely electrifying.  I saw more than one person actually stagger back.  My best description is that Clinton has one powerful aura.

    And no, it wasn't the crowd.  I've shaken Kerry's hand and Gore's when the crowd was whipped into a victory frenzy and there nary a static flash.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:55:01 PM EST
    Of the many politicians & the years they trod the stage (as I say to my husband while striking the pose of a statue and asking in mock surprise "and guess who said that"): Bill Clinton did not just have charisma, charm, intelligence.... He has a piercing focus on issues and an ability to communicate how it all fits together in society, while making it personal.

    As if there were only two people in the room when he spoke with you.... I believe that this is a man & politician who genuinely like people, thrives on people. And, it always shows.

    Parent

    I have heard (none / 0) (#192)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    of this phenomenon from the several people I know who have met Bill Clinton in person. One friend of mine referred to his charisma as an actual physical presence, much as SJ describes above -- and that was long after his presidency had ended.

    Parent
    Operative word (none / 0) (#194)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    here being "listen".  

    Parent
    If you cannot see the difference between (none / 0) (#79)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    what Clinton inherited and what Obama inherited, you need help.  Clinton came into office after a mild recession.  Obama came into office during the worst financial disaster since the great depression.  I have not been happy about Obama's policies either, but Bill Clinton (who passed a lot of the policies that contributed to the bubble) would not have created 22 million jobs.  Period.

    Parent
    Oh? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    Now you're calling it a "mild recession" after calling it a "roaring economy" a little while ago?  It didn't feel so mild to me and my colleagues when half of the company was laid off.  And it didn't feel so mild to the group of "partiers" a few tables down from me and my colleagues who had also been laid off that day and were also "celebrating" at the local O&G watering hole (I wish I could remember the name of that bar).

    NAFTA and DOMA are black marks to be sure, but I am not buying the kool-aid you're selling.

    Parent

    Didn't you get the memo! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    Clinton's economic success was due to Reagan. Bush's economic failure was due to Clinton. (snark)

    Republican had nothing to do with the soaring debt. Cutting taxes at a time of war and funding them with supplemental bills showed fiscal responsibility. According to Darth Cheney, deficits don't matter. (snark again)

    It must be wonderful to never be wrong.

    Parent

    ??? I said Clinton "inherited" a (none / 0) (#101)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    mild recession and "presided" over a roaring economy.  Look, if you want to live under the delusion that Clinton and Clinton alone was responsible for the creation of 22 million jobs just because he happened to be President when it happened, fine.  Are you one of those that think Reagan won the cold war because the soviet union fell apart while he was president?

    Clinton got the benefit of presiding when the big bubbles were building.  Bush to some extent and Obama to a large extent were forced to govern during the painful aftermath when the bubbles burst.  The worst bubble - housing - has its roots in the deregulation of wall street, most of which Clinton signed into law.  You are refusing to look at the whole picture.

    Parent

    A gross generalization (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 05:55:18 PM EST
    that most deregulation of Wall St happened at Clinton's behest.  Legislation deregulating derivatives was passed by Congress on its last day in session during the Clinton presidency with veto-proof majorities.

    And, under Clinton, the regulators were expected to and did regulate; when the Bush admin came in, enforcement of market regs lapsed....

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    had something that Clinton did not -- a transformational opportunity.  The country was suffering from widespread Republican fatigue (finally!) after the Bush years and had ushered in a Congress dewy-eyed about their new Prez.

    Clinton barely got the time of day from his own party.

    Parent

    Yup ... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    the day after Clinton was elected the news media went after him.  Not inaugurated.  The day after he was elected!

    They hit him hard on gays in the military that day.  With a lot of overheated coverage on all the networks which included video footage of marines showering.  I have still have this on VHS.

    Obama was having rose petals strewn at his feet well through the first year of term.  Had he done the people's business, he might still be getting those rose petals.  Instead, he did everything the bankers and insurance companies wanted.  And continues to do that to this day.  

    Parent

    Yep, Clinton had the (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    disadvantage of coming to power in a more conservative era overall, both in terms of the Right still in the ascendancy w/n the GOP and in terms of the MSM going increasingly rightward, on display since the early primaries of 1992 with their anti-Clinton bias.  And very little by way of liberal voices to balance out that bias.  

    He also came to power as a plurality 43% president, with little or no wind at his back and a Dem Party hardly united behind him.

    Obama:  huge wind at his back with 53% solid near-landslide majority (more if we count the millions he lost thru stolen votes, as per Prof Mark Miller), plus a majority of the MSM in his corner, at the very least not rooting against him as with Clinton.  O also came in at a time when the Right -- as represented by the discredited presidency of Shrub Bush -- was on the defensive.  O also had a somewhat more united party behind him.

    Bill governed in a more conservative time and yet still managed to go for the bold-stroke policies, some of them even of the liberal variety.  Obama had more to work with, had more of the country behind him, had significantly more political capital and momentum starting out, and yet chose to settle for 75% of what the GOP demanded -- then 95% on the debt ceiling bill.

    Obama's isn't the worst presidency of all time -- just the most disappointing.  So far.

    Parent

    Clinton also had both houses of (none / 0) (#103)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    Congress and lost both of them 2 years later.

    Parent
    And still managed (none / 0) (#196)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    to get things done well.

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    but Clinton came into office in the middle of a recession. There were hundreds if not thousands of failed banks, that the FDIC and RTC were allowed to handle, etc.

    True, Pres. Obama may have started his presidency with a worse recession than Clinton faced upon assuming office, but Pres. Obama's official actions have, IMO, made things worse, and this latest 'deal' is going to mean a loss, I understand, of well over a million jobs.  

     

    Parent

    Excuse who? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Rojas on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Those who ignored the disaster that was S&L deregulation to hand us this mess?
    Pres. Clinton's official actions, IMO, made things worse, much worse.

    Parent
    you should have made that your (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    "humble" opinion, because it's flat out wrong. unless, of course, you can provide actual facts to support it. you can't, otherwise you would have already.

    clinton didn't deregulate the S&L's (or the commercial banks), that was reagan, leading to both the commercial bank & S&L disasters.

    clinton was hardly perfect (and NAFTA is the epitome of his imperfectness, along with DOMA), but he inherited a recession, and didn't screw up the recovery. more than can be said for any republican since eisenhower.

    Parent

    Very true (none / 0) (#82)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    I will Clinton credit for competent management of the public sector.  He also did some good things (1993 tax plan for example).  Clinton is better than Obama.  He would have eaten the Tea Party's lunch for example on this debt ceiling hoax.  But Clinton WOULD NEVER had been able to create 22 million jobs during these years and a lot of the problems the economy has right now he played a role in (deregulation of banks, lowering taxes in capital gains/dividends providing bigger windfalls for those in stock and real estate speculation driving further inequality, NAFTA, etc.).

    Parent
    By all means (none / 0) (#181)
    by Rojas on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    The lesson of the S&L fiasco was to deregulate Wall Street and the banks that held those consolidated (5 cents on the dollar)  assets more. Concentrate more power in the so called self regulating systems that failed.
    By all f*cking means...


    Parent
    That's the nice thing ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    ... about "opinions".  You don't have to back them up with facts.

    Parent
    If a pilot is following (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    a flight plan, naturally he has to make in-flight corrections to get to the intended destination. At some point, let's say, he needs to banks left at 30 degrees. While turning left he turns his attention to other duties, and turns the controls over to the first officer. After the turn is completed the first officer returns the plane to a "straight and level" configuration.

    What my point is, is that governing is similar to flying.....corrections must be made to policies once they are implemented. If a President has left office after one of his policies went into effect it's a bit unfair to blame him 100% if that policy went array. One would assume that the originating President, had he still been in office and observed that corrections needed to made, would have made those changes.

    Bill Clinton has stated on many occasions that he recognizes the mistakes he's made, and also, has suggested the corrections he would have made to fix them. Once a person has left office, and has no more control, it's a little unfair to keep pounding them as if they would have continued the errant policies.

    The difference is in admitting that mistakes will, and have, been made, and that corrections to policies are almost always necessary.

    Parent

    Just winging it ? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Rojas on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:34:47 PM EST
    Really, are you serious?

    Parent
    "winging it?" (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:00:04 PM EST
    what are you talking about?

    Parent
    Under Clinton (none / 0) (#190)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    the RTC and FDIC took over hundreds if not thousands of banks, recouped monies for taxpayers, hired outside contractors on competitively bid contracts, etc.  And now?

    Parent
    Annnnddddd (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    He knew that when he was asking for the job.

    One hopes that when someone asks to do a job, they have a plan to do that job successfully.  Otherwise, what's the point?

    (Oh yeah, fame, fortune, cool housing, power, and lifetime health plan).

    Parent

    With (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    the worst economy can come great legislation.

    So what if Obama has a bad economy? It was no secret that everything was a mess and he has none nothing to help.

    Parent

    I do not disagree with anything you wrote (none / 0) (#119)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    My response is to this post

    Bill Clinton won the presidency after three crushing Democratic defeats.  And in '94, after midterm loses, he'd been all but written off by most pundits.
    Clinton was far from perfect.  And I often didn't agree with him on policy.  But every political advantage he had was of his own making.

    It's Obama who has had everything handed to him on a silver (banker sponsored) platter.

    Obama hardly had everything handed to him on a silver platter.  He inherited a mess from the worst President in our country's history (or in recent history - 100 years or so).  Clinton did not inherit problems anywhere close to what Obama did.  Clinton also had the wind in his back from a roaring economy that spike up in 1995.  The economy was due to macro factors that had little to do with him.  Furthermore, he drove policies that increased the bubbles he got the benefit of but contributed to the mess we are dealing with today.  That cannot be ignored when looking at Clinton vs. Obama.

    Parent

    Obama had it all.............. (none / 0) (#186)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:20:15 AM EST
    Both houses of Congress, and huge support among the voters.  People WANTED him to succeed.  They wanted him to lead.  Yet he blew it all.  How sad is that?!  

    Parent
    The Key Mistake (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    Was anyone who actually believed that Obama, an unseasoned, untested politician was the best choice for the office, especially when he was running against so many others who had the wisdom and experience to truly understand what the job of president (and dealing with Republicans) actually might entail.

    I don't think "seasoning" (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    was or is the issue. Rather, the issue is with judgement and strategy. At least, that's where the failures have been.

    There are, after all, lots of insane "seasoned" people. John McCain, for starters.

    Parent

    That assumes Obama's in charge ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    of all this.  He isn't.  He's another puppet.  He does what he's told, reads the prompter, and otherwise tries to keep his head low.

    And, after his second term, he'll leave office still quite a young and very, very rich man.

    Nice work if you can get it.  And sleep at night.  But I think Obama, like W, sleeps like a baby.

    Parent

    Not in charge? Ridiculous. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:06:19 AM EST


    Parent
    The policy continuity ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    between the W and O administrations begs to differ.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:27:27 AM EST


    Parent
    A little more "seasoning" (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    might have shown what poor quality the beef was.

    Parent
    Seasoning (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    tends to allow for better judgment and better strategy because of things like, knowing how the game is played and building relationships and seeing the job performed up close.

    John McCain is not insane.  You may not like his positions, but as a politician, he plays to the people who he hopes will elect him. And of course, I was talking about the wealth of experience on the Democratic side of the election.

    Parent

    I use "insane" advisedly (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    And whatever tendency "seasoning" may have to show what you say it shows, direct evidence in a political campaign seems obviously better to me.

    Parent
    As we can see now (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    Running a political campaign has absolutley zero to do with how well someone will run the country.

    Exhibit 1:  Barack Obama. (Or rather, David Axelrod and David Plouffe).

    Parent

    We already (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    had the evidence that running a campaign didn't translate into being able to run a country. May I present Exhibit A: George W. Bush Jr.

    Parent
    I don't mean running the campaign (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    I mean the articulated strategy of governance.

    Parent
    Which was what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    Remember - he never wanted to hold firm positions, but ran on more ethereal things like, "Yes, We Can!"

    While I applaud the effort to try and bring back positive thinking to a place that is very, very negative, that is not an articulated strategy of governance.

    Parent

    Do you remember the Reagan praise? (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    It wasn't all "yes we can!"

    Parent
    Which has what, (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    exactly, to do with how he laid out his plan for governance besides more platitudes?

    Parent
    This should be an object lesson (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by Trickster on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    On getting stars in your eyes and opting for the guy with no track record and, most importantly, no record on the issues.

    People got all starry-eyed because Obama had done a few lefty things as a representative of one of the most liberal local districts in the country, and let their imaginations and hopes guide their perceptions of who he was.  I just don't see how you can take a guy with almost no track record, sit there watching him campaign on his love and adoration for the Gipper while stomping the Bill Clinton legacy at every possible turn, and then conclude he was going to govern as a progressive.  Didn't compute.

    A little dues-paying . . . a little experience . . . it's not a bad thing.  I'm not saying experience trumps everything: but start out skeptical if it's not there.

    Parent

    Biden would have (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    better


    Parent
    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    Except he turned out to be a doofus when he opened his mouth.

    But on paper, he blew them all away!

    Parent

    Now, I can't go that far (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    He has all of Obama's conciliatory tendencies with all of GWB's doofus tendencies.

    Parent
    In addition, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    Richardson was known to have a serious zipper problem. Glad he didn't get anywhere near the WH.

    Parent
    Case in point: (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    I caucused for John Edwards in 2008 because he was the only candidate focusing on issues of importance to me, namely economic equality and jobs. If I had known then what I know now about Edwards and his adulterous behavior, I would NEVER have supported him in a million years.

    And I reject the notion that all, or nearly all politicians are chasing skirts and cheating on their spouses. I've personally known a number of politicians at the local, state, and national level, and none, to my knowledge are/have been adulterers.

    Jes' sayin.'

    Parent

    I've been borrowing it! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:21:58 PM EST
    Sorry, Donald, it's been a rough week, and the wine was all drunk up.

    Parent
    That's why I liked him on paper (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    Executive experience, Cabinet experience, International experience, and legislative experience.

    Parent
    Richardson owed (none / 0) (#197)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    any experience he had on the world stage to Clinton, and then knifed him in the back; not a leader in my book.

    Parent
    No kidding. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    At this point it looks like anybody running might have been better than Obama maybe even Kucinich because at least he would have quit trying to pave the streets of Iraq with gold.

    Parent
    Hilary would have been better (none / 0) (#12)
    by rennies on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:57:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    Hillary herself, plus Bill's mind would have been far more utilized if she were in there.

    Parent
    I hope (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    there is someone in the Obama Administration, or even better, Obama, who is going "oh sh*t" right now.  Because their strategy failed, big time.  I don't care if someone on a blog wants to argue that it wasn't a failure but I hope they don't believe that.

    Mother Jones had an interesting article on the Obama style this week.

    His choice to persist rather than fight is strategic: He and his aides firmly believe that he accomplishes more this way, no matter how the left may kvetch. "He's just not into the theatrics," says a one-time top White House official. "He starts off calculating what can be realistically achieved at the end and then works back from there to determine what needs to be done."

    If that's how they do it, then they must know they lost.

    New slogan (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    Yes, we can (realistically achieve in the current conditions)

    Parent
    I'm sticking with their last slogan (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    WTF

    Parent
    That graph really got me, too (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    He starts at the end by figuring out the likely outcome, then sets out to prove himself right. I hope whoever described it that way had it wrong because that's one of the most hair-raising things I've ever read about a president's reasoning.  But it rings all too true.

    What the ** ever happened to "the audacity of hope," aspiration, inspiration and all that stuff?


    Parent

    It's going to be used to make labels (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    for the Magic Sparkle Pony Dog Food - you were probably wondering what happened to the ponies, too, right?

    Well, there you go.

    Parent

    the pony meat- fattened (none / 0) (#110)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    dogs.

    Parent
    I think Gyrfalcon's (none / 0) (#199)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    post was snark....give her credit.

    Parent
    How does that approach work (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    when your opponent is not acting in good faith?  It doesn't.  "To get X, I must give the GOP Y."  The GOP doesn't work that way.  No wonder they spent the entire time running after the GOP.

    Parent
    Partially ghost written (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    Maybe that was the idea of his co-author.  We need to find that guy/al and maybe elect them?

    Parent
    Excellent post (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Lena on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    This really sums up the Obama mindset, and the resulting havoc, succinctly. Although I agree somewhat with Robot about Clinton's political advantages not being so great. Cllinton had an equally rabid Republican machine, and let's not forget, fractured and in-fighting Democrats, attacking him and yet he was able to accomplish so much more than Obama.

    Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    Shoot, Clinton was IMPEACHED and he got more done.  Obama is a failed president.  Only those wearing ABG-goggles can avoid seeing this....

    Parent
    Quite (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    ironic isn't it? Clinton got SCHIP passed through the people that impeached him but Obama can't even get a few crumbs after begging for them from the GOP.

    Parent
    Do you have links (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    to these polls that show "a majority of southern whites to even accept the fact that the president is an legitimate citizen"?

    I can see SOME southern whites (and northern and east coast and west coast too), but a majority??

    Parent

    The craziest southern whites (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by the capstan on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    I know (and that's where I live, after all) do not waste breath complaining about a black president, much less one who's not a 'real' citizen.  But I do get a batch of forwards from Detroit that sound like that.  Whites in this area mostly dumped the segregation junk some years ago, as you can easily see from the 'mixed' dating scene.  The gripe here is about an elitist president who has lived high on the hog for most of his life.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    Mostly 2 year old data, and not a majority of Southern whites in any of them, unless you combine multiple categories.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    really? (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    that's all you got out of that?

    Parent
    Uh, yeah (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    a 2 year old poll commissioned by DKos - like that's supposed to mean anything to anyone then or now.  And just because AAs overwhelmingly voted for him, does not mean that at the time that horrible question on the poll was asked "Do you believe Obama was born in the United States?" that some of them also did not realize that Hawaii is part of the US and answered accordingly.

    It's really a stretch to say that a "majority of Southern whites..." believe anything in this context.  Especially when there are very cosmoplitan cities with lots of Yankee influx - Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, Houston, etc.  You could say "The South has a greater proportion of people who do not believe Obama was born here in relation to other regions," or something like that, but to claim anything about a majority of Southern whites is simply ridiculous and a very bad use of statistics.

    Nice broad brushing of facts to suit the position.

    Parent

    I won't deny (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    that's part of the problem but it's also a problem on the left too that seem to excuse him because of his skin color.

    You're right that Obama SHOULD recognize that it is part of the problem. If he realized that maybe he would understand that people on the right who can't see past his skin color will never deal with him even if he offered up 100% Reaganite policy.

    Parent

    If you step back and assume Obama (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    is not a progressive and only cares about his reelection, everything he has done makes sense.

    I think Obama came out like a champ.  If I were him and only cared about reelection, I would have wanted 3 things from this: 1) a debt limit increase that takes me through 2012 - another battle like this in 6-8 months could have been ruinous to his reelection; 2) minimal to zero near term cuts; 3) emerge from this having independents thinking Obama looks like the reasonable one who was willing to do a grand bargain but was held hostage to lunatics that should never be given governing authority.  IMO, he got all 3.

    Another winner with the tea party.  Not a big victory, but for the first time in American history, we are raising the debt ceiling with spending cuts to accompany.  Is that going to be the precedent going forward?  I would argue it will be as long as Obama is President.  If he loses to Romney, we will go back to raising the debt ceiling clean.  Oh, and no tax increases.  They are also moving the country's mindset in the direction they want it to go - deficit hawkery, cutting spending, and doing it with less government not more taxes.

    Biggest loser IMO was liberalism/progressivism.  If you are a Krugman disciple that believes in Keynesian stimulus spending during depression level economics, liquidity traps, zero bound economics, etc. or a progressive that believes in higher taxes especially on the rich to fund a social welfare state to ameliorate poverty, inequality, etc. this was a very bad summer for you.  Progressives need two things: revenue and a political party that makes the case for their policies to voters.  They have neither anymore.  The Democratic has been moving in this direction for a while, but they are no longer even pretending to support progressive policies.  Both parties are deficit hawks with one only wanting to tax wealthier people and the other not wanting to tax at all.  That is why they are throwing a fit right now on the radio and in editorial pages.  They know they were the big losers on this.

    You'd be wrong imo (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    Obama's reelection is now more precarious than ever.

    Parent
    I don't think Obama is going to get (none / 0) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    reelected.  Why?  Because its the economy stupid.  But this deal is not going to hurt him.  He gets his ceiling extention, very little cuts in 2012, and a pitch he can make to independents to immunize him somewhat from the debt concerns.  "I wanted to lower the debt $4T, but those nuts did not want to end loopholes for rich people so I had to take less to avoid disaster."

    Parent
    The deal IS going to hurt him (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by mjames on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    because it's going to hurt the economy. There won't be money for jobs and money to the states will be cut way back. Thus, our standard of living will continue to deteriorate. It IS the economy. And this deal directly effects the economy in a negative way.

    Parent
    I wonder sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sj on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:32:57 AM EST
    How much Obama really wants a second term.  He's said before (although I can't find the link now) that he and Michelle discussed "governing" for only a single term.  

    I believe he'd like to win, because you know, he likes to win.  And I believe he's reveling in the one BILLION dollar campaign war chest that he hopes to build.  (Because seriously, that's impressive.  Sick.  But impressive.)  

    But if he loses he can always say that he tried to do the right thing yadda-yadda.  And losing isn't as craven or obvious as just deciding not to run again.  But either Obama or the next Republican president will continue the dismantling of the New Deal, so in a real way his work is done.

    Parent

    Nope. Rich liberals will make sure he's re-elected (none / 0) (#187)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:29:07 AM EST
    Democrats on wall street, and people like Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews, won't let the first Black President fail to get re-elected.  They've invested too much of themselves in this guy.  They will make sure he wins. We'll all be racists if he doesn't win, or that's how they see it.  

    Parent
    I don't think rich (none / 0) (#200)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    liberals will bring the President a win in Ohio.  I think the election will be a very tough one, and may depend on tangible improvements in jobs numbers and the economy generally.  

    Parent
    He needs the Progressive block (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    Obama may find out just how much he needed the progressive wing of the party come 2012.

    If there are cuts in Medicare or S.S. he'll anger the seniors. (That's a large voting block)

    The college kids that jumped on his band wagon in 2008 have graduated now and are probably still looking for a job! They may not be a thrilled with his hope and change now.

    The moderate Republican base that he continues to cater to walked away from him 2 yrs ago.

    His only hope at reelection with be if the tea party trashes the Republican Convention and scares the country away from the Republican Party.

    Parent

    Which means (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    His only hope at reelection with be if the tea party trashes the Republican Convention and scares the country away from the Republican Party.

    That OFA will coordinate with those friendly blogs and MSNBC to constantly keeping putting people like Michelle Bachmann! and Sarah Palin! in our face, even though they have no chance of winning.  Ooh!  Boogety-boogety - Sarah Palin!

    Parent

    More than seniors (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    If there are cuts in Medicare or S.S. he'll anger the seniors. (That's a large voting block)

    I would think all boomers who have been 'investing' in the programs for the past 30+ yrs are apt to be pretty p*ssed.

    Parent

    Definitely (none / 0) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    His "New Democratic Party" didn't work for him in 2010 and it's shrinking with every poor leadership decision.

    Parent
    Chess (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    I think Obama was playing 11 dimensional chess and the other side was playing checkers.

    The quote is from the interview with the Reno Gazette, right?  What I will never understand is in that interview he told us who he was and who he will be as President.  Yet, the Inspired, refused to listen.  Now they are pouting.  

    Frankly, I am not surprised or upset at him in that way.  He is what he is.   What is pathetic is our side of the political spectrum and their claims to being smarter.  Look, he is not a Democratic President.  He is a President of the Independents.  He never even mentions his political party.

     If he was a fighter, why did he not force them to vote on the FAA before they left?  Could he have put it in the debt debacle bill?  

    Unless the Progressives get a rabid element elected, an element ready to fight, be ready to give the safety net and most of our gains up.  

    Remember, when Reagan became Prez... (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    ...Obama was attending the priciest prep school in the state of Hawaii.  He was not hanging out with or coming of age with working class beach bums.  He was spending his days with people who loved Reagan, by and large, and, being Obama, I doubt he was keen to rattle any cages.  Obama is one absurd irony after another.

    And we must remember ... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    the woman who really raised him (his maternal Grandmother) was a banker.

    Parent
    Banker? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    <eyes rolling> Being just below middle management in a local bank branch does not make you a "banker," it makes you a bank employee.

    Parent
    It DOES color your perspective, however (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:41:55 PM EST


    Parent
    That's silly. (none / 0) (#107)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    By that measurement, I guess that means my cousin, who's been a middle manager and loan officer for the past twenty years, has right-wing, corporatist leanings. Er, except that she doesn't.

    As gyrfalcon points out, Obama's grandmother was hardly a "banker."

    Parent

    That's not exactly what I'm saying (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    Let me use myself as an example (because that's what I was thinking of, anyway).  My very first full-time job was for a fairly large (for the time) bank in Denver.  At that time branch banking was not legal in Colorado: secondary locations had to be within something like 1/2 mile to the primary location.  

    Like darn near every other employee of the bank I thought this was ridiculous.  And management was always telling us HOW ridiculous it was and wonderful it would be if only branch banking was legal and how more convenient, etc. etc. etc.  Within a few years the "no branch banks" law was repealed.  

    That's all I meant.  I didn't mean that it would turn her into a raving right winger -- only that it would color her world view.

    Like the good little employee I no longer was, I thought that was wonderful.  No sooner had branches been built than banks began consolidating via mergers, buy-outs, etc.  In fact it was so frequent that at least TWICE the name of my financial institution changed before I had a chance to use a box of checks (as a single parent I wrote a LOT of checks -- often for as little as a couple of bucks).  And every time, fees went up, and services grew poorer.

    So I -- a very low level employee -- had my employer's best interest at heart.  Not mine.

    So what I am saying in this long-winded response is that if O even occasionally heard his grandparent remark about how this regulation or that law was preventing her bank from being the best it could be, it might make an impression.

    Parent

    And what I wanna know (none / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    Is how my last sentence ended up as the third paragraph...

    Parent
    Can't do anything about your phantom (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    paragraph (I've noticed the commenting box turns some of my posts inside out) but I appreciate your perspective.

    One thing: My grandparents ran a large company, my grandmother became the prez and CEO when grandpa died, ran the place for another 25 years, and she remained a dyed-in-the-wool liberal all her life. Okay, well, except for that blip in 1980, when her second husband convinced her to vote for Reagan.

    Parent

    That's true enough, but (none / 0) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    it's true of anybody who works for any kind of private business (especially small ones).  Griping and grumbling about taxes and regulations and red tape and bureaucracies is just par for the course, no matter what business sector you work in.

    I understand what you're saying, I just don't think there's anything there that's unique to banks.

    Parent

    I never said there WAS anything (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    about it that was unique to banks.  I said working for a bank (or insurance company or a construction company, etc.) -- at any level -- colors your world view.

    Parent
    No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    Local bank branches are no different from McDonald's, except somewhat better pay.  It's just a service organization.


    Parent
    It's a great story (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    And one I would not wish to tarnish.  My original point remains.  When cowboy Ronnie came into office, our current president was in a very exclusive and elite environment that was very keen on Reagan.  And it must have influenced him, because his "transformative" comments about Reagan are intellectually absurd.  My roommate from freshman year at UCSD graduated from Punaho a few years after Obama, btw.  I think he's a lawyer in Honolulu now.

    Parent
    Our guide on the Big Island... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    ...talked about those schools.  His kids were at a Waldorf School, I think in Puna, and he kind of lamented that he couldn't get them into the Kamehameha School.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#174)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    I'll trust you on that one.  But I find it very hard to believe there is not a significant correlation between prep school and his irrational Reaganizing.  That is all.  The rest, about local kids hanging out with who they hang out with, I leave to your experience.

    Parent
    you are right on the '79 point (none / 0) (#198)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 06:07:42 PM EST
    Pre-Reagan in prep school, I stand, er sit, corrected.  He was at Occidental in the hood in L.A., then in NYC his Ivy League stint at Columbia, when Reagan was rolling in.  

    Shape shifter, I kind of like that.  But the Reagan worship, practical politics or no, I can't abide it.  Makes me ill.  If I have to pull the lever for him again, I'll do so holding my stomach.

    I woulda voted for Mondale in '84, but I didn't turn 18 until a few weeks after that election.  I don't know if that can be labeled any less young and stupid as voting for Reagan.  Fritz "six-tenths of one electoral vote" Mondale, he was a gamer.  Sigh.  

    Parent

    Compare (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." - Barack Obama, January 2008

    to the apologias floating around:

    We didn't lose this fight. Barack Obama was in law school when this fight was lost.

    The role of Democrats should not be to convince people that government is great; it should be to help people reach their potential -- and government is a tool to do that. There has been a strain of skepticism about the government in the American character since the founding. Only the New Deal changed that significantly, but we have been returning to the norm ever since then.

    This is the core of the left's critique -- the country doesn't agree with us, so take what political capital you have and use it to convince people to agree with us. But the presidency is not a Brookings lecture series; it's about governing the country and making a difference.

    As TomP says, "if you view the battle as lost already, then you really won't make a difference."

    Obviously (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    I agree with the Kos post:

    "We didn't lose this fight. Barack Obama was in law school when this fight was lost."

    That was the point I made yesterday.

    Parent

    Are you sure (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    you aren't on the GOP payroll? I mean you're saying, once again, that we can't have anything but Republican policy in this country so we're all just going to have to suffer. You're making a great case for Romney for President. Maybe his campaign should hire you.

    Parent
    Eat your peas! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    As I said to someone last night, all I want to do is work hard to make a secure life for myself and lend a helping hand to others who need it. Apparently that is no longer an achievable goal in this country.  We aspire to suffering rather than to alleviating suffering.  I guess if we all become ascetics that will make the ruling class happy.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    us "peons" are going to pull out the pitchforks sooner or later. So beware!


    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    Red meat, seasoning, peas -- this thread is making me hungry for a good steak dinner.  Guess we'll all need to put that off for about 10 years. ;-)

    Parent
    fyi (none / 0) (#99)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    Did you see the transcript from Keith O's show the other night?  He is basically advising people to take to the streets in acts of civil disobedience.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    I didn't see that but maybe I should watch it on the web.

    Parent
    Maybe KO should have a couple guys (5.00 / 7) (#126)
    by smott on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    Take Obama into a back room and...and...

    Oh wait, wrong candidate.

    KO can go eff himself.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    agreed that KO is a sexist creep but I must admit I was shocked to hear his outrage over this debt deal.  Maybe he's seeking redemption.

    Parent
    Many already organizing (none / 0) (#172)
    by Madeline on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    I think there are four groups stated for dates in September and October.

    No publicity about them but they are out here.

    Parent

    And if you read TomP's post (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    you will see the reasons you are wrong.  The reason I quoted Obama though is he gave us reason to believe he thought maybe the fight was not lost.  

    Do you think the liberal blogosphere should operate under the assumption that the battle is lost?

    Parent

    Yes he does (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    ...if that's what it takes to get Obama re-elected...

    Parent
    What (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    Obama is really saying is that he wants a return to the glorious time when we had a smooth, genial salesman who favored the rich and powerful yet maintained a reputation as a lovable regular guy.
    A man who knew nothing about government and cared less.

    Obama is in that mold. Perfect.

    Obama wants, "... clarity, ... optimism, (and) a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship". And he wants it to be based on pure illusion and fantasy - as it was during Reagan's reign.

    Obama has always been right wing.
    He has associated with the likes of Lieberman,
    He took gobs of money from Goldman Sachs.
    He waffled on the wars as soon as the spotlight was upon him.
    He gave what I felt were pedestrian cliché-ridden speeches that were hailed as "electrifying" and even compared to Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

    He maintained an image of a genial and brilliant orator. A friend of the downtrodden. A change from the Bush era. All the time refusing to distance himself from it - with the exception of his promise to close Guantánamo. That turned out great.

    This was his dream.

    And he made it.

    On a personal note, I thought Reagan was an atrocious president. He gleefully widened the gap between the rich and the poor - and process which has continued. He ruined the Union movement. It has not recovered. Not to mention Iran-Contra.

    This is the person that Obama invokes. This is his role model.
    And Obama still retains a reputation as being a democrat.

    Please.

    So, Obama wants to be like Ike and Reagan? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:39:06 AM EST
    Great. Wasn't Obama elected as a democrat?  When does the "lovable, regular guy" kick in?  Nothing about him says "regular guy" to me.  Clinton, yes, he was a lovable, regular, guy.  Obama?  Not so much.  Heck, not at all.  He's part of the elite, and thoroughly enjoys it.

    Parent
    The difference between Clinton and Obama: (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    "(Pres. Bill Clinton) beat the hell out of us first, for a year. He pummeled us for a year. ... He didn't roll over the second we walked in. ... Then he out-negotiated us for a year. He brought us to our knees." - Joe Scarborough

    Go read the rest at Taylor Marsh's blog, because she posted about the exact same subject this morning.

    Too bad liberals/progressives (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    did not play hard to get with Obama, as they did (and still do) with Clinton. I stick by my realization yesterday that it is not Obama who is the bad bargainer.

    I think it should be obvious to anyone (5.00 / 12) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    who looks at where Bill Clinton came from, and what he - and Hillary - put their time and energy and focus on for years - finding ways to lift up the least among us because they knew those benefits would lift everyone - that Clinton had something at his core that Barack Obama does not.  He also knew that good policy was good politics, and if enough of that good policy earned you the support of the common folk, his political and electoral success would follow.

    I'm not saying that Clinton made all the right policy decisions - he didn't - and some of those decisions are haunting us today, but he didn't do what Obama does: throw rhetorical bones to people who need their government to create the conditions where they can lift themselves up, and then go on about selling people out behind closed doors.

    Clinton knew he was a flawed human being (although that knowledge didn't unfortunately keep him out of trouble), and maybe that's why there was less judgment in him, less reluctance to provide help because there was a chance that someone who didn't need it might get it.  The rhetoric of judgment colors a lot of what Obama says - and does - which I see as an important difference between these two presidents.

    I think who people see as their heroes or role models says a lot about who they are, which is why Obama's embrace of Reagan and his dismissal of Clinton spoke volumes to many of us who heard Obama's comment - and it didn't send any tingles up our legs, it was more like shivers - the bad kind - up our spines.  Nothing I have seen has proven my gut reaction wrong - would that the last two+ years had.

    I think this is key (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    He also knew that good policy was good politics, and if enough of that good policy earned you the support of the common folk, his political and electoral success would follow.

    From what I have seen so far I do not know that Obama knows what good policy is. I at least knew Clinton had a broad grasp of policy, and even when I did not agree with him I was willing to acknowledge he knew more than I did about most things and might be right. I am not that confident in Obama so far.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by chrisvee on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    that Clinton had something at his core that Barack Obama does not.

    Just as every person makes mistakes, every pol will make mistakes. But the magnitude of them will be determined by the star to which s/he navigates.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    don't disagree with the Clinton v/s Obama evaluation.

    But I do remember that Clinton, shortly after he came into office, bombed Iraq - allegedly because Hussein had a plot to kill Poppy Bush. I don't remember how many civilians might have been killed, but I felt it was a ritual exercise: The new head of State kills some people to show who's the new boss. And, in the process, he helped keep the anti-Iraq fever alive for W. instead of defusing it.

    And he bombed Iraq again during the impeachment hearings. Many, including me, felt that he was doing so to distract from the scandal. According to wikipedia, Lewinsky's testimony before congress was to be followed by a special report on all ABC stations. That report was cancelled by the report on the missile attacks by the US upon Iraq.

    How many died in that attack - and for what?

    So, as much as I would like to say that Clinton certainly looks good in comparison to the personages who succeeded him, I do feel that he had a huge callous on his soul.

    I couldn't look at him.
    I couldn't look at Bush.
    And now I can't look at Obama.

    Parent

    I really think (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    you kinda sorta are obligated to do something if it's discovered a head of another government has fostered a plot to kill a POTUS or former POTUS.

    And I don't believe for one single solitary second that Clinton bombed Iraq in order to preempt live coverage of Monica Lewinsky.  Why?  Because he just wasn't that stupid.  The entire media universe was pretty much all Monica all the time.  Not a single solitary soul in the U.S. and around the world had to miss one second of Monica coverage as a result of that strike.

    Parent

    I did not believe it then (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    and I do not believe it now that he bombed Iraq to distract from Monica. It was far too late and it is not a distraction when it would be called an obvious attempt at distraction.

    I did not agree with it, but I don't think that was the reason.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    I'll settle for "I didn't agree with it".

    Because in my mind, it was savage.
    It cost civilian lives.

    I still don't know what it's real purpose was.

    At the time, I was more sympathetic to Clinton. I felt that the repubs were going after him mostly in revenge for the dems having gone after Nixon. They still feel that Dicky was wronged - and everything would have been cool if he had just burned the tapes.

    Now, of course, they burn all the tapes.

    That's progress.

    Parent

    honestly I can't remember the details (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    and do not have the visceral memory I have about subsequent Iraq activities. I am not disagreeing with you at all about the wrongness or savagery of it. My memory is just not as good as yours.

    I do remember thinking at the time that the 'Clinton is wagging the dog' line had more to do with the coincidence of the movie that was out at the same time than it did with reality.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#145)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    wouldn't say that my memory is better than yours.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#139)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    that I have to say that I never believed the premise.
    What plot?

    I felt that the bombing was totally unnecessary - and purely to establish his position of president in the eyes of the world. He gets to drop bombs and push buttons.

    I also felt he was interested in establishing a connection with Poppy so as to appear presidential and show a sense of continuity just when I was hoping for zero continuity. (Obama did that with W. "Thanks for your service". Yikes.)

    Just my opinion.

    That bombing in the early days of the Clinton administration soured me on him right away.

    And - with respect to the Lewinsky bombing thing...
    I don't really know how stupid Clinton could be.
    What he did with Monica was either extremely arrogant, or extremely extremely stupid. Imo a combination of both.
    Arrogant because he said he did it because "I could". And he did it knowing that Monica would have to talk about it. He said so.
    So he did that move on her knowing the consequences.

    I have come to feel that there are different types of intelligence.
    The least impressive to me is the type of intelligence that was exemplified by people like William F. Buckley. You feel that you are in the presence of an intellectual, but what you are hearing is the dumbest sh*t in life.

    Clinton obviously has some brains and knowledge. He still sounds good. But something is missing imo. Look what he did to Haiti with his "free trade". How bright was that? How could he have not known the effects of his actions? Something cancelled his intelligence. Ambition? Jingoism? I don't know. It happens.

    So, yes. He could have done something that stupid or arrogant or just plain crazy.

    Parent

    And how many times (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:37:59 PM EST
    does he have to apologize, and take responsibility for what he calls the "worst decision of his Presidency?"

    That's the difference between a real man, and a phony. And that's the reason why I said that its somewhat unfair to blame him completely for some action he took while President, and not available now to alter those decisions.

    Parent

    Bill Kristol is actually grinning (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Obama might want to be Reagan, but Kristol giggling says Obama is a born again neo-con.

    This is priceless from Jack and Jill.

    "People who voted for Obama got 4 more years of Bush"

    Certain Republicans sure seem positive Obama is on their side.  They don't come across as thinking Obama has a negotiating problem.

    I keep (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    telling my conservative friends that they should love Obama. But just like the "progressives" who think he's wonderful, they can't see past his skin color.

    Parent
    Well, a lot of liberals I know (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    couldn't see past his skin color, either.  I kept being told that, no matter anything else about him, that was why they were voting for him.

    I do wonder now whether that will work for them -- and for him -- a second time.  After all, they made their history, and once is all it takes for a "first."

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    think it's going to work this time.

    Parent
    I certainly got the impression, if not saw it (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    explicitly written down, that his skin color is progressive enough for right now. Sorry, no.

    Parent
    Very Interesting! (none / 0) (#122)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    Didn't Obama win the primaries in all the red states? Perhaps they saw traits many progressives didn't choose to see.

    Parent
    Personally, the 90s (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    weren't the best in my life. RIF'ed from the Army as part of the 'peace dividend,' failed at farming, then grad school and eventually a police department for a year...

    But it wasn't Clinton's fault in these cases except NAFTA, which allowed importation of Mexican pecans with lower production prices... but US pecan growers failed to vote in a marketing agreement... like "Florida orange juice" or "California almonds."

    Without the US brand, and without advertising, we shot ourselves in the foot on that one. Now Texas is the biggest pecan producing state, and the high saline soils in Mexico (and Argentina) produce fewer and fewer.

    But NAFTA didn't stop US pecan growers from planting newer more disease-resistant and efficient varieties... Many of the growers themselves did that.

    Be that as it may...

    So... given all that he faced, and what he accomplished, Clinton turned out to be a superior president.  History will give him more credit and prestige in 50 years. Perfect? Not a chance. No president is. Within the Top 10? quite possibly.

    Heck, even when we write of Reagan here, we must needs remember that he raised-- yes RAISED taxes, what? 18 times during his tenure?

    He also worked with Tip O'Neil (sp?) to put SS on a solid foundation. The first president to successfully undermine SS remains Obama, with the 'temporary payroll tax cut.' A cut that gives a few bucks more to folks who have jobs. Not those who are looking.

    Now how many of you think the temporary cut will be temporary?

    Not I. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:01:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Me neither. (none / 0) (#68)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    Sigh.

    Parent
    The funniest (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    thing is over at the orange they are blaming Bill Clinton for this deal. They just can't accept that they were willingly duped by Obama and are just flailing around spewing venom at everybody except the very person responsible for this mess--Obama himself.

    Seriously? Not that surprising, but ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    ... how does that logic work?

    Parent
    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    when has logic applied to those people? They saw what they wanted to see. These are the same people who thought Dean was the anti-war candidate in 2004 who promised to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Obama will be making (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    W. look good before long. No problem. In 2016 We will choose an untested, inexperienced candidate with a boatload of Wall Street money to bring change.
    Nice caveat (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    "E]ven though Clinton enjoyed political and economic advantages that Obama does not . . ."

    Yep. Other than the fact that Clinton did not have to deal with a crushing global (not just domestic) recession and had republicans on the other side of the aisle who supported healthcare reform in a way unheard of in today's GOP and is dealing with a coordinated sub-group within the opposition party which is even more conservative than the average conservatives and even though he wasn't dealing with republicans who signed blood oath tax pledges . . . .

    Other than all of that Clinton was better than Obama (despite Obama only being in office 2.7 yars) because . . .

    Yeah, all of that aside, I guess Clinton did do a better job.  Completely agree.

    Awwwwwwweeeeee .... (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    Other than the fact that Clinton did not have to deal with a crushing global (not just domestic) recession and had republicans on the other side of the aisle who supported healthcare reform in a way unheard of in today's GOP and is dealing with a coordinated sub-group within the opposition party which is even more conservative than the average conservatives and even though he wasn't dealing with republicans who signed blood oath tax pledges.

    1.  Clinton inherited a recession in '92 and enacted policies to make it better.  Obama inherited a "global" recession in in 2008 and has done virtually nothing - except spend two years passing the Republican HCR plan from '94.  If he wasn't up for the fight, maybe he shouldn't have run.

    2.  Yeah - Republican's were sooooooooo supportive of healthcare reform in '93.  They were so supportive, in fact, they designed Obama's plan.

    Pffffttt ....

    1.  Uhhhhmmmm - the rightwing of the Republican party has been around for a very long time.  The fact that they've rebranded themselves as TPers is the only thing that's "new" about them.

    2.  The "taxpayer blood oath" was alive and kicking all through Clinton's terms.  Grover Norquist came up with he "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" back in 1986, although I do like the rebranding ("Taxpayer blood oath" - heh).


    Parent
    Don't forget (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    We, as a nation spent a whole year discussing whether or not a b_low job was sex or not and Clinton was impeached.  Of course, we had suits being filed that Clinton had to respond to, and rumors floating about how the Clintons killed Vince Foster.  Obama has had his "scary Muslim from Kenya with no birth certificate" moments, but not from serious people, or from people who most thinking people take seriously.

    Parent
    You forgot to mention (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    Clinton was supposed to be a drug runner, and Hillary was a big lesbo who was having an illicit affair with Vince Foster.

    Remember Gennifer Flowers and her list of people she said Bill Clinton had had killed?

    Anybody who thinks Obama is getting the biggest hit job evah from the GOP is either too young to remember or deliberately telling mistruths.

    Parent

    {Smacks head} (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    How could I forget all that stuff?

    Whitewater, Trooper-gate, Travel Office-gate, etc.

    Parent

    And now (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    During the last campaign, the ABG-goggled 20-somethings -- who would have no recollection anyway, except from their right wing parents -- were tauting all of this as truth.

    All of this smear worked far better than Republicans could even have dreamed...

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    typewriter-gate, Air Force One-gate and gift registry-gate.  They couldn't even stop making ** up when he was leaving office.

    The political hits on Obama have been harsh, no question, but for those who are tempted to think nobody's ever been treated so badly, it should be remembered that the 8 years of non-stop vicious personal sliming of both HRC and BC was simply beyond belief.  Nothing even close to comparable has been directed at Obama and Michelle.

    Parent

    Don't forget Richard Viguerie (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Trickster on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    ably assisted by the brightest lights in the Republican legal firmament, e.g., Ted Olsen, Richard Starr, and more.  Paula Jones didn't come otu of nowhere.  She came out of a richly-funded investigation to find a plaintiff to go against Clinton.  She had one of the most expensive legal teams in the history of the planet.

    On a parallel track, numerous paid investigators were combing over every inch of Clinton's past and feeding their finds to pliant media.

    This happened from the very beginning.  The Republicans were out to impeach Clinton from the day he began his Presidency.

    I'm not aware of any parallel effort against Obama (and the anti-Clinton effort was VERY VERY visible by this point in his Presidency).  I'm also not aware of any of the internal Party bickering the Clinton faced even before he was elected.  Yes, he had a "majority" in both houses, but he had to beg, borrow and steal to get 218 votes in the House for his historic 1993 budget, and Gore had to come in for a tie-breaker vote in the Senate after Clinton finally got Bob Kerry to come to the altar at the last minute.

    On the one hand, it is absolutely true that, while the economy was not in great shape when Clinton was elected, Obama came in to an economy that was in much worse condition.  But politically, he had huge advantages over Clinton, including REAL majorities in both houses.

    Parent

    "The Hunting of the President" (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    lays it all out in vivid detail.  One of the best, most important books about politics in a long time-- and utterly, totally ignored by MSM.  It's still worth reading (especially for anyone who's inclined to think even slightly fondly of Ted Olson for his work on the gay marriage case).

    Parent
    Meh (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    Clinton had no Houses of Congress.

    At this point, I find it hard to believe you won't concede that Clinton was the better political bargainer.

    Parent

    Obama has been a bad political (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    bargainer. I can concede that.

    I think you can believe that without making the incredible leap to bad faith and absolute bush-ism that others do.

    The disconnect is that I believe that a great bargainer would not have obtained a deal with revenues or no spending cuts.

    It just didn't matter how good Obama was or wasn't on the point.  Bargaining depends on a rational counterpart.

    Parent

    But 2010... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    House of Representatives, D; Senate, D.

    Obama's insistence on process, on compromise, invited the republicans to the table in December.

    But Obama could have asked for a debt ceiling raise in May, march, or in November right after the elections. He could have insisted on a clean bill. Instead, he passed The Deal, leaving out the debt ceiling.

    So, not just bad negotiation, bad policy. Not just bad policy but bad vision.

    Process, 'sausagemaking,' isn't the end. Policy remains the end result, irrespective of how one gets there.

    We, the public, have no policy vision to embrace. Remember the State of the Union Address? I remember it. It bored me. The SOTU had no policy vision. By NOT establishing his encompassing view and direction, congress was captainless on where to fight and where not to fight.

    the end result? the ACA, an enrichment program for private insurance, and The Deal, and the Politburo, aka gang of 6, gang of 12.

    Obama has again taken himself out of a position as the leader. He doesn't want the 'hard work' part of the job, it seems. W, running around and saying it was hard work, was actually doing something, whether he was the puppet people make him out to be or not.

    Obama said, "Let there be health care reform." We got health insurance reform.

    Now Obama has become a deficit hawk. He's potentially abandoning the Democratic Party base. That base isn't the 'creative class,' the young voters, or Wall Street with its money.

    Working people, unemployed people, seniors, the disabled, people of color, these groups make up the Democratic Party base.

    Deficit Hawks in my party tend to reside in the senate, from non-coastal states, and have as many or as few constituents as a single congressional district.

    I Do Not Care if Kent Conrad favors fiscal austerity. He doesn't speak for me.

    Neither does the president.

    Parent

    I think I can say with some confidence (5.00 / 17) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    that if Clinton had governed like Obama, he would have lost whatever advantages he had; as it is, Obama came into office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't he?  I have to keep reminding myself of that, since it's otherwise hard to tell - or remember.

    I will keep saying this, probably until I am blue in the face, but the emphasis on reducing the ideological tension between the parties - I will call it The Obama Doctrine - has done more to undermine and destroy the Democratic brand than anything I can think of.  And I will believe until it is proved otherwise that had Obama come into office actually believing in anything but himself, had he had bedrock beliefs in Democratic principles, he would not have worked so hard to blur the lines and water down the brand.

    What we needed after Bush was an honest-to-deity Democrat with a commitment to rolling back the terrible decisions of the Bush years because those decisions were antithetical to the integrity of the democracy.

    And before you go accusing me of wanting the perfect Hillary Clinton, let me assure you that while I would have voted for her in a heartbeat, I am aware that she is not perfect, and I expect on matters of foreign policy, I would have found much to take issue with - but she is no empty suit, afraid to reach high because she might be disappointed, at least she believes in the basics of human dignity and decency, at least she understands how things work, at least she never forgets those with the least.

    At least she looks people in the eye, and not down her nose.

    We will be paying the price for effects of The Obama Doctrine for a long, long time.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    top to bottom.  I agree with every word of it.

    Parent
    With greater challenges (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Left of the Left on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    Come greater opportunities. He has failed.

    Parent
    Worth Repeating (none / 0) (#96)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    Clinton had a roaring economy that was not his doing.  He [delivered] competent management of the public sector and contributed in some way, but the economy was soaring and he benefitted from good timing.  In fact, most of the growth during his term was phony (debt, housing, dot com, etc.).

    and honestly who cares if

    "he made clear how far he would go and how far he would not go"

    when the end result; which is what matters, is the same?

    Clinton did tack to the center during this period.

    There really is little difference between these two presidents other than some minor style points.  I would argue, Clinton's approach amidst the culture wars of the 90's is the reason this president must manage the way he does.

    Hogwash (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    The Tea Party came about and was successful primarily because they saw an opening where Obama was weak and they could twist the message to make him look like a socialist.

    Clinton took these people head on and won - more than once.  He would never have allowed the Tea Party be as successful as they have been in managing the message.

    That is more than a "minor style point difference".

    Parent

    Those that make up the Tea Party are the remnants (none / 0) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    of the culture wars of the 90's who did indeed lose - but not because of Clinton, rather, because our society moved on.  How you can say Clinton took these people on and won is odd since upthread you go on about all the scandals - unless you think people don't remember Clinton as a womanizing sleaze-bag.  All that crap that went on was a constant distraction and a good reason why congress went hard right, and the president, ultimately, to the center.

    Fact is people just liked Clinton - he was a likeable guy.  To say he wasn't hamstrung just like this president however is, IMO, inaccurate.

    Parent

    He did win (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    See:  Newt Gingrich and government shutdown, impeachment, etc.

    Obama took on Republicans and .....{crickets}

    Obama was supposedly a likeable guy too.  Maybe is really is.  But he and BC do not just have "minor style point differences".  They have fundamental differences in policy, governing, knowledge of the issues, outlooks, sympathy, empathy, etc.

    Parent

    Too bad reality and (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    what you repeat don't seem to meet up... parallel lines between reality and post...

    roaring economy... remember "it's the economy, stupid?"

    Try reminding Dear Leader. Try also looking at the debt and housing issues-- when, precisely did they start? How did they contribute to the Clinton presidency?

    didn't Alan Greenspan and the Republicans promise an ever-rising tide, and the nation needed to cut taxes because revenues would just keep on going up?

    Which president balanced the budget?

    Parent

    I remember the slogan quite well (none / 0) (#113)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    what programs did Clinton or the Congress enact during his term that lead to job creation?  I remember a lot of wealth created because the internet took off.  I remember alot of real-estate deals.  "Balancing the budget" you can't be serious - all that is is a bunch of numbers moved around on paper based on projections.

    We need to be honest w/ourselves about what our side accomplishes, and more importantly, how, if we want to continue to be in a position to do that which matters to us.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    I'm glad to know that Clinton spent eight years in office getting oral sex, then, because the economy surely loved that.

    But I'd say examine the 1993 budget reconciliation act, to begin with, which restructured taxes for small businesses.

    However, since you seem to be in either Obama-loving and/or Clinton-bashing mode, I'll leave it to you to have whatever final comments you wish. Good day.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#130)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    I am neither loving or bashing - a shame you come away from my comments w/the most banal interpretation.  I like & support all my Dem presidents - regardless of style/approach or dare I say it, "effectiveness."  Interesting you note restructured taxes for small business, a decidedly rightward, er, centrist achievement.

    and in all sincerity, good day to you as well.

    Parent

    A non-comment-related follow up... (none / 0) (#147)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:22 PM EST
    I apologize for not saying "sir or ma'am," as opposed to sir. Making assumptions on gender, whether correct or not, was an error on my part. Apologies for that.

    Parent
    targeted govt. spending (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by dandelion on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    How does government EVER create jobs?  By spending.

    Sure, the internet boom created jobs.  But so did the govt spending under the Clinton administration, which included revenues to states for hiring police officers and teachers, increased revenues to research facilities, increased spending on the arts -- etc etc.

    None of that stuff happens just because -- it happens because it's policy.  And yes, those are real salary paying jobs, even if they're funded by govt. money.  And they have a multiplier effect on the economy.

    And this is EXACTLY the stuff we've been cutting since Clinton.

    Parent

    Not according to the government (none / 0) (#177)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    Table 9.1--TOTAL INVESTMENT OUTLAYS FOR MAJOR PUBLIC PHYSICAL CAPITAL, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND EDUCATION AND
    TRAINING: 1962-2011

    (in millions of dollars)
    1998 - 134,343
    2010 - 372,195 (estimate)

    % of outlays - which to me may indicate how high a priority this spending is:
    1998 - 8.1
    2010 - 10.0 (estimate)

    Link

    Parent

    Also check out the law enforcement section (none / 0) (#180)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    under 750 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

    Overall spending is about the same as is the broken out categories under JUSTICE.

    Parent

    More Obama (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    apologia. Obama is either massively inept or he is getting the conservative policy that he always wanted.

    Obama could take on these people instead of giving away the store but he's chosen to give away the store and the GOP is just reveling in this. They hate Clinton's guts because he reamed them but they just call Obama names and he does what they want.

    Parent

    Burnishing Bill Clinton's Reputation | 185 comments (185 topical)