The Long Game
Big Tent Democrat printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:09:38 PM EST

Tags: (all tags)

Kevin Drum quotes Andrew Sullivan:

[Liberals] have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game.

Drum remarks:

This is sort of a watered-down version of the 11-dimensional chess hosannas that deservedly got a lot of mockery back in the day. But it wasn't true of Obama then (both his campaign and governing strategies have been fairly straightforward) and it's not necessary to explain anything now.

I agree. However, I disagree when Drum writes "Why is Obama now taking a harder, more partisan approach toward his GOP adversaries? [. . . H]e's doing it because it's an election year. It's now time for contrast, not compromise. This is Campaigning 101."

I disagree because governing requires contrast too. A pol must convince the populace that how he wants to govern is the right way to go as opposed to the policies proposed by your opponents. FDR was not FDR because he was a firebrand liberal. He governed as he did, and politicked during the governing BTW, because he thought he needed those policies for good governance and, not coincidentally, to win reelection. In terms of political style, Obama followed the Clinton way, and now, as Clinton, he fights the contrast fight, because the Third Way did not work then and will not work now.

Speaking for me only
< Tuesday Open Thread | SOPA Protest Blackouts Begin, Add Your Voice >


To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

The Long Game | 201 comments (201 topical)
Could it also be that (5.00 / 1)
maybe he's backing away from the bipartisan crap too?  Does he finally succomb to the truth about a fallacy that he came into office determined to make into a truth?

I know there is no way any sane person could campaign on anything other than contrast now.  After he wins, does this bipartisan crap of his that has destroyed so much finally die a natural death though, or is it going to come back to life again?

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM EST

I honestly find it hard to fault (5.00 / 1)
his as much as some do for the attempts to be bipartisan.  its not only the right thing to do, assuming you have an opposition party acting in good faith, the country is longing for it.

having said that I think he gets it now.  and if he is reelected I think a lot of they hysterical knee jerk opposition may cool a bit because stopping another term will not be an issue.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:50:27 PM EST
Parent

I think that it should not have taken (5.00 / 5)
him three years to figure out that the opposition party was not "acting in good faith," but yes, I sincerely and profoundly hope and pray that he indeed "gets it now."

by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:56:02 PM EST
Parent
no argument (none / 0)
but in truth he got some stuff done.  not to go all Sully or anything but he did.  and considering the batsh!t crazy kamikaze we-live-to-oppose-Obama no charge is to ridiculous republican opposition, I think he has to be given credit for that.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:01:28 PM EST
Parent


In principle, I agree (5.00 / 1)
But in practice it has been quite clear that the GOP has not been an opposition party acting in good faith for quite a long time now. Obama should have recognized that and acted accordingly.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:35:56 PM EST
Parent
who knows if he is this much (none / 0)
of a tactician but the argument could be made that continuing to so publicly prostate in an attempt to get republican support was all about the "long game".

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:44:10 PM EST
Parent
As you already said (none / 0)
Clearly highlights and confirms the experience argument.  He thought he could play nice - he wasn't around the Senate long enough to build relationships and had no federal experience to know how to work the system.

But there are those who believed his awesomeness would allow him to overcome that.

by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:58:30 PM EST
Parent

in fact (none / 0)
all indications are that it will

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:22 PM EST
Parent


Perhaps (none / 0)
Could be that he knew exactly what he could accomplish given 8 years and the political opposition he was facing. I envision a highly tuned actuarial model.

It is just horrible that what could be accomplished is so inadequate to the challenges we face as a country.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:06 PM EST
Parent




Disagree regarding Republican actions (5.00 / 1)
Republicans will continue to obstruct in hopes of bringing about failure looking to the 2016 elections.

The GOP degenerated into depravity over the last three decades and that level of depravity won't end soon.  

GOP operatives cultivated divisiveness to gain power and in the meantime turned their base into a bunch of raving lunatics.

Perhaps worse, I suspect that GOP leadership actually believes their own crap.

It will take establishing a center with successful activist policy to bury the GOP and the GOP will stop at nothing to prevent establishing a progressive center.

by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:00 PM EST
Parent


I don't doubt that the country longed for it (5.00 / 0)
but it isn't now.  The live audiences in the GOP primary have made it clear to even those who aren't political junkies that who the GOP base is during this time is not someone sane people unite with.

When I watched Alexandra Pelosi's documentary on Evangelicals, she argued that Democrats needed to find common ground with them because they were a power that was rising.  I shook my head in disagreement, but I knew she was likely speaking the speak of the beltway.  It was always bullshite though.  This country has gone through many "revivals" that fall by the wayside when times get tough and we have to pull our heads out of our mysticism and find real answers that work.  This wasn't America's first religious awakening.

Evangelicals are what I consider a cult too, and they once thrived on projecting exclusivity during a robust economic time.  Times get tough and suddenly repeating the prayer of Jabez over and over again everyday isn't working so hot though.  It's time to attack some poor people and some brown people and some black people.

I never had to fudge my beliefs or my morals and values, I only needed to stand my ground.  My beliefs and morals are based on real life, not some fantasy and rhythmic emphasized words from a pounded pulpit when credit was free and God loved us all and it was harder to find some exclusivity to feel special in and some couldn't stand that.

Nobody finds common ground with Evangelicals though, their identity is based upon how they are different and better than the rest.  They have no interest in ever being "common" and that is why the further right Obama goes the further right the South and the Evangelicals go.  Their whole identity is wrapped up in how they aren't being us.  Their whole identity is wrapped up in not sitting next to us in class, but making sure they sit completely on the other side of the room and forever if need be look for a few opportunities to jeer at us.  It's a wasted miserable life, but it is their choice and like children, horses (I just watched the documentary on Buck), and dogs....if you think you will bribe them into respecting you you will only breed more contempt :).

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:29 PM EST
Parent

I agree (5.00 / 2)
that Pelosi is looking at things from a beltway perspective and I'm sure that's a lot of what has gone wrong these last few years. The fact of the matter is that the evangelical movement is spent. I mean these people are fighting over whether to endorse Newt or Santorum. Considering what they say they stand for it should be a no brainer and they should endorse Santorum but even they know that his radical beliefs won't win a general election. These people are so bankrupt it's not even funny and they are giving Christianity a very bad name. The sooner they drop out of the political process the better.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:04 PM EST
Parent

MT, you are a poet (5.00 / 1)


by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:04:54 PM EST
Parent
Heh (none / 0)


by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:53:27 PM EST
Parent


Evangelicals (5.00 / 1)
I am going to disagree with some it, they think they are better, but it's been my experience that they want to be around others, and push, push, push.  They are very, not passive aggressive, maybe christian aggressive.  They will smile to your face, then stab you in the back and take delight in twisting while telling you how need to be like them, good Christians.

Not exactly, but coming from the north there is this underlying hatred that is cloaked in nicety that has been unnerving at times.

I have regular discussion with this guy I work with, he's old and definitely southern, he can't even say the word black, he whispers it.  I mentioned it a coupe times that if you can't hold your views out in public, they are not good views.  His comeback is always some version of politically correct.  It's sad, he's a nice guy, just a different generation, but it goes to my point.  At work he's a delight and liked by everyone, but for some reason I am lucky enough to be let in on the ugliness, probably because I am white.  And it sucks because it's pretty diverse around here.

But there are a lot of people like that here and they are almost always Evangelical.  Pleasant to you, but for some reason that's something that has to be done socially, but when they feel like they are around like minds, then the ugly hatefulness comes out.

Being a Yankee, it took me a long time to adjust because it's so well developed.  One minute your talking to a nice person, then bam, just the most vile hateful garbage, then back to nice.

by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:13 PM EST
Parent

Evangelicals aren't just in the South though (none / 0)
I've had some heavy exposure and I was living in Colorado and Wyoming.  I was living in Wyoming when the movement was a baby but I was engaged to the nephew of a minister that ended up in Benny Hinn Ministries.  I've seen some stuff go down :)  The poor guy I was engaged to but grew to hate because of the faith I think (we did not end up marrying...I ended up literally running away), he became a DEA agent in Florida (as was always his plan).  But because of so much brain washing and crazy mysticism about invisible angels and demons fighting each other he got to the point that he could no longer function in his job and had a nervous breakdown.  He ended up on suicide watch, and divorced, and broken.  It was sad.  He was a good person and stable once upon a time, and handsome and intelligent too.  His whole family is deeply entrenched in it though, he has no way out, no support system other than to be crazy.

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:54 PM EST
Parent

I really have trouble w/the lumping of (none / 0)
all evangelicals into a single, negative stereotype. Jimmy Carter certainly doesn't fit it. Neither do many others


by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:19:28 PM EST
Parent
Why do you consider Carter (none / 0)
an Evangelical?

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:25:49 PM EST
Parent
Is it because he is "born again"? (none / 0)


by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:26:54 PM EST
Parent

Southern Baptist (none / 0)


by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:29:03 PM EST
Parent
Dobson went to war with him long ago though (none / 0)
He has been kicked out of Evangelical Americana for openly expressing his desire among them all long ago for gays to have their own family units.  He expressed such ideas to them all when I was in grade school and they want no part of him evah.  Carter is what I consider an old fashioned "revival" Christian.  Generally a decent person looking to treat others decently.  No current Evangelical leader seeks his alliance, guidance, or assistance.

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:35:14 PM EST
Parent
That's kind of my point. Carter most (5.00 / 2)
likely considers himself to be an evangelical Christian.  Do Dobson et al. speak for every evangelical Christian?  I don't think so.  

by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:57:11 PM EST
Parent






I think its a mistake (none / 0)
to judge the whole country by the reactions of the audiences for republican debates or what right wing evangelicals want.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:56:24 PM EST
Parent
who by the way (none / 0)
are not at all the people Obamas "long game" is being played to.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:08:34 PM EST
Parent

So you think that at least 60% (none / 0)
of America watched that debate or the highlights that have been on all day and weren't horrified?

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:15:25 PM EST
Parent
Remember how much of the "Conservative" (none / 0)
military answered a survey about gays serving and said that it would be okay to serve next to a gay soldier and live next to a gay soldier?  And you really think that a majority of America isn't just flat out horrified by the last Republican debate?

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:18:04 PM EST
Parent
And it wasn't just the crowd (none / 0)
The crowd was played to by the candidates, these candidates are party leaders and that was what was REALLY horrifying.  Do you really think any of those guys can just dial back what they have said before God and everyone and we will still want to join up?  Oh hell no

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:21:33 PM EST
Parent

you misunderstand (none / 0)
or perhaps I do.  that is not my point.  read below.

I agree with that

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:26:01 PM EST
Parent



I dont know (none / 0)
my point is larger and directed at your comment that I think was a response to mine about "not doubting the country longed for it" or something like that.

I dont think you can watch a bunch of yahoos at a republican debate and extrapolate from that there is not a longing in the larger population of the  country for having their government work.  which I hate to say involves compromise.

I have no doubt that many people have been horrified by many things that have happened at republican debates this year.  the list is long. and my point is it is those horrified people I think Obama is and has been playing to by setting up the republicans to look like the party of no.

you cant take a bunch of radical evangelicals or loud mouthed republican fan boys as any kind of indication of that the country wants.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:25:02 PM EST
Parent

I see where you are coming from now (none / 0)
The current Republican party leaders though.....what is there to be bipartisan with?  They hate women, they hate children other than their own, they hate brown people, they hate black people, they hate gay people, they hate poor people, they hate sick people....what is there to be bipartisan with that doesn't require us locking ourselves in a closet and ritually cutting ourselves in order to tolerate?  Jus sayin, I don't think anyone is crazy enough to dream about bipartisaning with these guys these days.

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:36:05 PM EST
Parent
I dont disagree with a single word of that (none / 0)
but it STILL makes a huge amount of sense, electorally, for Obama to appear to be trying.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:37:31 PM EST
Parent
I think it works against him at this time (5.00 / 1)
And after the election, I think he needs to do right by the black community if nobody else and tell these f^ckers to go fl^ck themselves.  We need to run so against them that they are voted out of power again in the House.  Pelosi says it's possible.  She wants to be speaker again so bad it isn't funny :)  Whip those donkeys Nancy, make em sing for suppers :)

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:41:58 PM EST
Parent
I think taking the house back (5.00 / 0)
is not only possible but I already predicted that in threads here.  
the the truth is Obama will not help himself by showing the anger that you and I and most likely he feels.  he wont.  and he is smart enough to know that.


by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:54:22 PM EST
Parent
He won't win the House back (5.00 / 1)
by saying that Republicans have been right.

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:13:54 PM EST
Parent
he has not said the (none / 0)
republicans are right about much of anything for a while now.  in fact he has been scalding them pretty good in speech after speech and I expect that to continue.  and increase.

neither will he will the white house by becoming the angry black man they would so love to portray him as.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:33:10 PM EST
Parent

You seem overly worried to me about him (5.00 / 2)
being an angry black man.

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:36:24 PM EST
Parent
as he is and has (none / 0)
spoken of more than once.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:08:52 PM EST
Parent


Talk, talk, talk... (5.00 / 3)
problem is, he's pretty bad on the follow-through; that's a tactic that works much better when someone doesn't have a record to answer for.

If anything, getting re-elected is going to free him to quit paying lip service to what used to be the Democratic platform - have you looked at his jobs council's recommendations yet?  Straight out of the Heritage Foundation/GOP/conservative playbook.

But, by all means, just pay attention to his words.

by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:53:26 PM EST
Parent

Talk, talk, talk... (none / 0)
thats actually very funny

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:09:43 PM EST
Parent
Not remotely as funny ... (5.00 / 1)
... as comment #176.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:59:35 PM EST
Parent
thank you (none / 0)
I guess

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:06:49 PM EST
Parent


Wow...it only took you (none / 0)
16 minutes to read that!  And I didn't even have to mention Dick, Jane or Spot.

Well done - keep up the good work!

by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:13:40 PM EST
Parent

sorry (none / 0)
I have a life that interferes with hanging on your every word.  I will try to do better.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:16:22 PM EST
Parent
You have a life? That's the funniest of (5.00 / 3)
the nearly 100 comments you have made - so far - today.

As near as I can tell, your life consists of sitting in front of the computer, making sure you opine on every single, solitary comment every single, solitary commenter here makes.

When you're not replying to replies to your own comments, that is.

You have a life.  Sure you do.

by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:29:42 PM EST
Parent

goodness (5.00 / 0)
take a deep breath.  or something

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:55:43 PM EST
Parent
















I don't (5.00 / 4)
accept that he lurched rightward on so many issues of importance because he wanted to be bipartisan.

I think he misled a bunch of people into thinking he was liberal when in fact he has never been that.

I may not be representative of anything, but to the extent to which I hoped for anything it was a complete turning away from the horrors of the GW Bush administration. Obama's notion of being "bipartisan" is apparently to leave as much of the sickness foisted upon us by his predecessor intact.

by lentinel on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:02:56 PM EST
Parent

actually he is governing pretty much the way (5.00 / 1)
he campaigned.  or at least the way many of us expected him to govern based on the way he campaigned.

he was never the leftist some leftists thought he was and is certainly not the righist he is often portrayed as.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:11:32 PM EST
Parent


Well, he did give thaChicago speech against US (none / 0)
Invading Iraq. And  b/4 he decided to run for Pres. He was supportive of the Palestinians.

by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:24:28 PM EST
Parent



I think a quote from W suffices to answer you (5.00 / 1)
". . . fool me once, shame on -- [pauses] -- shame on you. Fool me -- [pauses] -- You can't get fooled again. "

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:10:16 PM EST
Parent

I'd like to think (none / 0)
he's learned something.

If nothing, the debt ceiling fiasco might have been the last straw.

I certainly hope so.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:28:18 PM EST
Parent

personally (5.00 / 1)
I think it has become rather painfully clear that the experience arguments Clinton made during the primary were valid.  for three years he often really seemed in over his head.

I also like to think he has learned something and I think his actions the last few months indicate he has.  

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:47:19 PM EST
Parent

Drum is right , it's an election year (5.00 / 1)
and he has lost a not insignificant number of his base.  Once re-elected , here comes the Grand Bargain & other wastes of time.

BTD is right also, governing requires contrast but we have not and will see that, instead we'll get more of this hideous search for common ground.

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:13:42 PM EST
Parent

"hideous search for common ground" (5.00 / 1)
interesting choice of words.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:15:03 PM EST
Parent





Obama followed the Clinton way? (5.00 / 2)
Erm - really?  It seems to me Obama caved on a number of important progressive points this first term with IMO disastrous results....both politically and policy-wise....

How is that following Clinton exactly?...

by smott on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:57:50 PM EST


I think (5.00 / 3)
that Sullivan is revising the "11 dimensional chess" argument that has largely fallen out of favor. Anyway this is "Campaign Obama" coming out and "Campaign Obama" will say anything to get your vote. The problem he has is that people have seen "Governing Obama" and that is a completely different person than "Campaign Obama" and can look at Obama's record and judge it accordingly this time whereas last time most people just bought into the campaign rhetoric.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:57:43 PM EST
Here is the problem with your position (none / 0)
The broad assertion that people are judging Obama and that's why this is a close race ignores a certain reality:

If the unemployment rate were 7% today, Obama would be a shoe in to win reelection and would be viewed as a smashing success.

Would that 1.5% mean that all of his other moves and policies suddenly changed drastically in form? Of course not.  What that means is that people view a president's policies based on their own pocketbook many times.

So despite grumbling about his bailouts and not ending the wars quickly enough and moving to slowly on certain issues and not appointing enough women or whathaveyou, the entire narrative changes in a world of 6.9% unemployment, let's say.  Then, suddenly, Obama's appointment of 2 women justices is a huge win for women's rights.  Then his repeal of DADT and refusal to prosecute DOMA is groundbreaking.  His ending of 1 war and preparation to end another while ridding the world of Ghadafi and Osama and overseeing the Arab spring are all vindications of his greatness.

In other words, he would be viewed both by dems and liberals generally as a smashing success.

That's the power of 1.5% in the unemployment numbers and something that everyone who reads too much into his lower numbers now (and those like me who will read into his surge when the unemployment number shrinks) should always keep in mind.

Money in pockets makes any leader look fantastic.

Ask Clinton.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:27:59 PM EST
Parent

Well (5.00 / 1)
that's kind of been my point all along. All those things would have been great had Obama done job one from the beginning and that is fix the economy but he chose not to do what was needed. It's the economy stupid and one thing Obama should have paid attention to too was Carville's adage that when you're opponent is drowning, you throw him an anvil not a life jacket like Obama has.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:36:32 PM EST
Parent
This is why we disagree (none / 0)
I do not think that it would have been possible for any president to fix the economy in the three years Obama has been in office.  I think the best of the best case scenarios was an additional .5% off of unemployment and that wouldn't be much.

This recession was global and our fate is tied to the world's.

That's the crazy part about all of the rhetoric on all sides.

People still assume that an American would have the most sway over the economy.

I think the person with the most power over the economy path of the US economy is Merkel in Germany.  No bullsh*t.  If Germany sacrifices for everyone, we'll be just fine.  If not, we are likely screwed.  I think it could be that simple.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:03:38 PM EST
Parent

Why (none / 0)
elect Obama then? It would have made more sense to have McCain win the election in '08 if you believe that.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:25:23 PM EST
Parent
Because there is more to this country (none / 0)
than the unemployment number.  And because the fact that his policies don't change much short term doesn't mean they won't have an impact long term.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:37:10 PM EST
Parent
yes, there is more (none / 0)
to this country than the unemployment numbers

as for this election, history says that the unemployment numbers, high or low, are sufficient to determine the outcome

but we'll see

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:01:20 PM EST
Parent






If the unemployment (5.00 / 3)
rate was 7% today, which it is not, I would still consider that Obama sold us out on the public option.
I would still feel that he caved on his promise to close Gitmo.
I would still feel that his justice department is crazed.
I would still feel that his signing of a bill that permits indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial is an abomination.
I would still see that we are in knee deep in Afghanistan.
I would still see that he is rattling the sword, preparing us for some kind of confrontation with Iran.

To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in "The Maltese Falcon", a little more money in our pockets might tip the scales a little bit, and allow us to drift to sleep as the country continues to fritter away its hard-earned civil liberties.

But the reality is that there is no more money in our pockets.
There is less.

For me, Obama has been a non-entity. A nothing.
And the next election will be between a shadow and a freak.

by lentinel on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:29 PM EST
Parent


wow (none / 0)
i think all anyone here is saying, or at least all i've said about Obama's re-election prospects, is that they rise & fall with the economy, & specifically with the unemployment rate, an idea on which you & i seem to agree

if the unemployment rate drops, the swing voters in the swing states -- i.e., the small bloc of relatively apolitical, nonpartisan independents & last-minute "undecideds" who will decide the election -- will probably choose to give Obama a second term

now, how would Obama's re-election, if based virtually entirely on the unemployment rate, automatically validate everything he has done & magically transform some of his policies from cr@ppy to sublime?

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:42:44 PM EST
Parent




It seems to me (5.00 / 1)
Obama has done a fairly good job of letting the GOP go at it over the past few months.  His approval ratings have been recovering slowly but steadily since the end of the debt ceiling debacle (TPM).  He looks good by comparison if nothing else.  Gallup even has him at a draw in approval rating as of yesterday.

by lilburro on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
Yes - excellent strategy of laying low (5.00 / 1)
The more they take center stage, the worse they look.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:22:24 PM EST
Parent


also (none / 0)
speaking from a purely political point of view it seems to me he has positioned himself pretty well for the coming election.  poll after poll showing he is the one seeking compromise and the republicans are not.

so if that is the long game we are talking about I think he is not looking so bad.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:14:03 PM EST

HE's looking great, (5.00 / 1)
what about the rest of us?  

He'll be just fine win or lose.

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:24:27 PM EST
Parent

I think the actual topic (none / 0)
was the long game and his ability to play it or not.

but please, dont let that interfere with the hysteria.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:31:44 PM EST
Parent

His personal success is his long game (5.00 / 2)
that is why I believe he is so quick to jettison positions that are dear to his supporters (past & present), in order to, as you put it, get something done.

Sure, all pols are pols and in it, mostly, for themselves.  Obama, though, disses his supporters and compromises their principals right out of the gate to a greater extent and with more eagerness than any politician I have ever observed.  Anyone who thinks at this point that Obama's election year contrasting is anything more than posturing to regain the weakening support of his base has not been paying attention.

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:07 PM EST
Parent




in fact (5.00 / 0)
I would say his positioning against any republican challenger, in this economy and considering the bludgeoning he has taken from the opposition - that is even or slightly ahead - is nothing short of miraculous.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:34:59 PM EST
Parent
Agree (none / 0)
I guess polling does not quite support this at the moment, so call it a hunch, but I don't think he is going to have a problem getting reelected.

preparing to eat crow come November....

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:56 PM EST
Parent

I have long thought he would be reelected (none / 0)
lately I have started to consider electoral landslide.

with noted caveats in other comments.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:07 PM EST
Parent

Define landslide (5.00 / 1)
I may want that bet

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:53:42 PM EST
Parent
stay tuned (none / 0)
I will let you know

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:57:25 PM EST
Parent
Above 54%, I believe? (none / 0)


by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:23:03 PM EST
Parent





Completely agree (none / 0)
The fact that he is leading Romney nationally given this economy is evidence that his brand of politics is working amazingly well.

He is not supposed to be doing this well.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:41 PM EST
Parent

Or (5.00 / 2)
The vast majority of people (except political partisan junkies) haven't really started paying attention and won't until there is an actual Republican nominee and it's after Labor Day.

by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:26 PM EST
Parent
You think Romney (none / 0)
is going to become more appealing between now and November?

I disagree.

Wasn't the argument against Obama in '08 that he hadn't faced a "real test" against republicans yet?  (and for all that this is getting contentious between Romney and Newt, you can't say Hillary didn't give him a tough fight) The same could be said for Romney at this point. He is losing his luster and he's not even facing the Obama campaign.  It's certainly not true for Obama anymore since he has been under attack from the right for 4 years now.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:05:42 PM EST
Parent

it really won't matter (5.00 / 3)
if the election is a referendum on Obama

which it will be if the unemployment rate doesn't come down & stay down

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:19 PM EST
Parent

it will matter (5.00 / 1)
because if it is about the economy Romney has nothing to offer the people who are mad at Obama.

He only has to offer the fact that he likes to fire people like them.

I think in that case people will stick with the devil they know.

If Romney could offer a single argument about how he's going to help the middle class it would be different.  The problem is not only that he can't it's that he won't because it goes against his entire ideology.  And he's no GWB that you want to have a beer with while he robs you blind.  He's the type of guy you look at and just KNOW he is robbing you.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:11:42 PM EST
Parent

i don't think (5.00 / 2)
that electoral history supports this assertion:

I think in that case people will stick with the devil they know.

in a bad economy, the election becomes a referendum on the incumbent

whose policies do you think were better for the voters, Jimmy Carter's or Ronald Reagan's?

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:14:46 PM EST
Parent

Ronald Reagan (none / 0)
was an actor, and Carter had an international hostage crisis.

Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.  And Obama is no Carter.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:16:59 PM EST
Parent

There's (5.00 / 1)
a lot of variables out there: Obama has a demoralized base. There's an enthusiasm gap on the D side. The economy is bad. People aren't going to care about who they want to have a beer with when they don't have a job. If people see Romney as an acceptable alternative to Obama they will vote for him. Less charismatic people have been elected president than Romney. And guess what? Obama is going to do his nomination speech at the Bank of America stadium, the company that people love to hate in this country. How smart is that?

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:41:41 PM EST
Parent
Romney (none / 0)
will have a demoralized base.  There will be an enthusiasm gap on the R side.

Why would anyone who wasn't rich see Romney as an acceptable alternative?

If you agree that the optics of giving a speech in a stadium owned by Bank of America looks bad, how can you turn around and say that actually running a company that makes Bank of America look like a bunch of patriots - looks good?

There are lots of variables.  I just fail to see a variable that puts Romney over the top.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:48:18 PM EST
Parent

Well said, I agree (none / 0)
And this is the end of my hunch-based speculation!

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:11:59 PM EST
Parent

I'm not saying (none / 0)
that it's going to put Romney over the top. I'm just saying that Romney's weaknesses are the same as Obama's. Neither one have a clue about the middle class. Romney sees them as someone to be fired while Obama sees them as a sociological experiment to be studied and neither one has a clue as to the suffering that is going on in the country. With that being said, people still might chose Romney simply because they want to get rid of Obama.

Romney will have a slight advantage I think because while there are going to be people in the GOP that are not wild about him there are going to a lot of people who are going to simply vote against Obama. Now will there be enough of those to push Romney over the top? That is the question.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:20:09 PM EST
Parent



Disagree about the enthusiam gap (none / 0)
I think many of the points you are making were valid at the start of last year, but things have changed.  Dems are getting more fired up and the GOP less so as Romney takes the lead:

This today:

"ome troubling news for the GOP was reported by the Globe this morning: Fewer Republicans voted in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary then in 2008 and 2000, the last two elections without an incumbent. Low turnout is bad news, indicating that voters are less than enthused about the party's candidates, a concern echoed by a recent CBS News poll showing that 58 percent of Republican voters would like more choices."

Link

I think you are making the same arguments that you would probably have made in January 2011, but the landscape has changed slightly.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:48:30 PM EST
Parent

Who shows (none / 0)
up in the primary means nothing with regards to November. I used to think this because back in 2004 literally nobody showed up here in GA to vote for W in the GOP primaries while Dems showed up in mass IIRC.

Anyway, W went on to carry Ga by something like 18 points. So that kind of blows your theory.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:42 PM EST
Parent

what? (none / 0)
GWB didn't have a real opponent in the '04 primary.  Why would anyone show up?

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:30:28 PM EST
Parent
I'm just (none / 0)
using it as an example of it means nothing as to what happens in the primaries because they showed up in mass for the general election.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:18:07 PM EST
Parent



the whole (none / 0)
enthusiasm gap thing is totally gone.  that is showing up in poll after poll.
if it ever existed it does not any more.  google it.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:08 PM EST
Parent

the whole (none / 0)
enthusiasm gap thing is totally gone.  that is showing up in poll after poll.
if it ever existed it does not any more.  google it.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:08 PM EST
Parent
I hate when that happens (none / 0)
but I will respond to the second one.

that gap is gone in all likelihood because of the wonderful and endless republican primary that is embarrassing republicans from coast to coast.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:39:39 PM EST
Parent


Well (none / 0)
from googling the enthusiasm gap has shrunk from a 13 point difference to a 5 point difference but the GOP still has the advantage in the latest polling I could find on the subject.

FWIW Fox did a poll out today that had Romney and Obama tied.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:03:07 PM EST
Parent




Latest Poll Shows 90% support from (none / 0)
Democratic base ('WP poll and/or CNN International yesterday, I believe.) That is quite a good number for this early...since, usually, the candidate could expect 92 to 94 percent in a decent year.

by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:28:01 PM EST
Parent


Yup - it is not just the economy in a vacuum (none / 0)
The opposition has to have something going for them that makes people think they will make it better. I don't see it happening with Romney - he has neither the charisma nor the policy alternatives.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:23:57 PM EST
Parent




also (none / 0)
the economy sucks right now.

So the fact that he is leading Romney anyway right now makes this argument harder to swallow.

Putting Romney on TV more isn't going to help him make the economic argument.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:15:03 PM EST
Parent

we'll see soon enough (none / 0)


by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:24:24 PM EST
Parent





He is running against a party (5.00 / 1)
that in 2008, 3 years ago, was completely discredited.

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:57 PM EST
Parent
they were (none / 0)
in 2010 when they won more house seats than any election in history.  whats your point?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:26 PM EST
Parent




on this (none / 0)
i will agree with you

my evidence is anecdotal, but it seems to me that ordinary people (i.e., people who are not strong partisans of any stripe, & who do not spend hours commenting on blogs like TL) have absorbed the message that the GOP is the "party of no"

i imagine that will help Obama somewhat, but i also foresee an election that will be close, one whose outcome will depend above all on the economy, not on people's perceptions of who is or is not "seeking compromise"

if the unemployment rate doesn't start dropping & keep coming down, ordinary nonpartisan people (i.e., independents), together with partisan Republicans, may well vote Obama out of office

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:33 PM EST
Parent

no argument here (none / 0)


by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:40:48 PM EST
Parent



The Third Way Failed? (none / 0)
Based on what metric?  Clinton's two terms? His long term high approval ratings? The success of the economy under his leadership?

Despite the battles with Newt and his crew, the real  determination of success is the big picture results.  If you argue that Clinton's presidency was about the Third Way and then ask if his presidency was a success, I don't know if we can claim the Third Way failed.

The argument being that the big battles that highlighted partisanship masked lower level successful negotiations on various lower level issues that aggregated into a larger success.

Don't know the answer, but I didn't know that everyone viewed the Third Way as a failure.  

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:27:46 PM EST

"Despite the battles . .. " (5.00 / 2)
Clinton won reelection BECAUSE of the battles.

My gawed, the stupid in this thread is piling up.

I'm leaving again.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:45:29 PM EST
Parent

but how do you feel (5.00 / 1)
about Tebow?

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:25 PM EST
Parent

That's a response (none / 0)
We can agree on that at least.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:58:07 PM EST
Parent

BTD.... (none / 0)
LOL !! I so agree with you !

by samsguy18 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:03:15 PM EST
Parent

Hmmmm. Perhaps Jeralyn's "BTD is away (none / 0)
foraway for a few days"" had an extra dimension to it.

by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:32:38 PM EST
Parent


Oh brother (3.00 / 1)
Lowered capital gains to 20%, eliminated Glass-Steagall, deregulated communications, twisted many Democratic arms to pass foolish trade agreements.

by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:16 PM EST
Parent
And (none / 0)
Oversaw a period of prosperity

Still has remarkably high approval ratings

Could get elected again if he could run

It would be good if the narratives all fit into simple storylines, but they do not.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:44:07 PM EST
Parent



maybe i wasn't paying attention (none / 0)
but i don't remember ever before seeing such a stirring defense of Bill Clinton and the "third way" from you, ABG

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:03:53 PM EST
Parent
I think Bill Clinton was a great POTUS (none / 0)
and I also think that if he were President in this environment, he'd be as distrusted by the further left as Obama is now, perhaps moreso because I think  he would have conceded even more.

I think the Obama Presidency is remarkably similar to Clinton's in terms of concessions and such.  We are simply in a different time and the expectations on the left are much higher now IMHO.  Others will disagree with that I am sure, but if Obama had passed DADT, DOMA, Glass Stegall and Welfare Reform during his term, there would be an all out revolt in the party.

Clinton was able to do it with only minimal blowback.  Times have changed.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:28 PM EST
Parent

The expectations on the left aren't higher ... (5.00 / 3)
... because of the passage of 16 years - they're higher because Obama allowed himself to be sold as a progressive when he needed those votes, then failed to live up to expectations.

Double-edged sword.

Moreover, public opinion was strongly against repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and in favor of DOMA in the early 90s.  Now, public opinion has swung strongly the other way - it was a no-brainer that took no political capital.  By "Glass Steagall", I assume you meant GLB, which was passed with a large, veto-proof majority (362-57 and 90-8).  Despite the fact that GLB did not cause the financial meltdown, of course there would be more resistance to any type of deregulation ... so what?

It's not that the "expectations are higher on the left", ...

.... it's that the bar among some Obama supporters is so much lower.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:29:07 PM EST
Parent


not to mention (none / 0)
Clinton handed them the club to beat him with.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:41:03 PM EST
Parent




Side Note (none / 0)
The most accurate piece of both Klein's piece was the following IMHO:

"Obama's reelection won't be decided in the pages of newsweeklies. It will be largely decided by the state of the economy. And the state of the economy will largely be decided by events in Europe."

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:34:18 PM EST

Well (5.00 / 1)
if it's going to be decided by Europe then Obama is toast because they are going all out on austerity over there.

Suze Orman was talking about this very thing the other night. She said it's going to be bad here but not as bad as it's going to be in Europe this year.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:15 PM EST
Parent

I don't see Orman (none / 0)
as some sort of wise oracle, but I have been saying here since last year when we were talking about the Bush Tax cuts and the economy that Greece and the domino effect was going to be the key driver of American unemployment.

It's the reason that attempts to link Obama's policies to a high unemployment rate at the end of 2012 will be completely dishonest, although they will probably work.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:35 PM EST
Parent

You have (none / 0)
and I paid more attention because of the heads-up.

by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:04:30 PM EST
Parent




Toxic Waste (none / 0)
Sadly, many Obama supporters refuse to watch reality unfurl. They still believe that extending Bush tax cuts, short changing social security by cutting 2% off the contribution, an impossible and expensive health care reform are not awful and damaging to most of us.

For this people, Obama the great is equivalent to there is no global warming.

Clinton was a good president. He fought the Republicans, he raised taxes on richer people, he let them close the government and showed them up, etc. It's about time that people stop libel Clinton on everything under the sun.

by koshembos on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:36:40 PM EST

he also lived in different times (5.00 / 1)
and with a opposition party far more likely to try to do good for the country in spite of hating him.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:39:01 PM EST
Parent
really? (5.00 / 2)
that is not the GOP i remember, not even from Clinton's first term

they worked around the clock to delegitimize President Clinton from day one, since they felt that President George H. W. Bush, no matter what the voters said, was entitled not just to Ronald Reagan's third term but to Reagan's fourth term as well

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:26 PM EST
Parent

do you remember Clinton being (none / 0)
asked to produce his birth certificate?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:45:03 PM EST
Parent
no (5.00 / 1)
& what a silly question

nevertheless, there's a reason why Toni Morrison, of all people, said:

White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

later, when she went on to clarify her remarks, she said:

I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp.

in other words, he was being delegitimized, by the GOP

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:51:59 PM EST
Parent

it is absolutely not a silly question. (none / 0)
and the fact is it is unimaginable for any of his white predecessors to be ask to do the same.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:53:54 PM EST
Parent
i wonder (5.00 / 2)
which group is larger: the group that thinks Barack Obama is a Kenyan, or the group that thinks Bill Clinton was a drug runner & a murderer

i guess you think the birthers are crazier & more outrageous

i think both groups are & were lunatics, with the same goal: to delegitimize a democratically elected president

by the way, Clinton was actually impeached

except for the promise to impeach Nixon if he did not resign, you have to go all the way back to the 19th century, & the first President Johnson, to match that

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:00:57 PM EST
Parent

they were certainly both crazy (none / 0)
the difference is the birthers are main stream

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:09:19 PM EST
Parent
UTTER nonsense (5.00 / 1)


by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:11:16 PM EST
Parent
Donald Trump (none / 0)
was leading in the polls for the republican presidential nomination with this as his central issue.

ok.  I would call that mainstream

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:13:31 PM EST
Parent






Saxaphone-playing!!!! (none / 0)


by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:51 PM EST
Parent


I remember him being accused of (5.00 / 2)
offing Vince Foster to name just one outrageous charge.

by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:10 PM EST
Parent
speaking of citizenship, i do remember (5.00 / 2)
that during the 1992 campaign, operatives for the Bush campaign accused Bill Clinton of being a Soviet spy and seeking to renounce his U.S. citizenship, & they referred these false charges to the FBI for investigation

within hours, the Bush campaign leaked the story of the FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek, which ran with the story on October 4:

The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton's passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.

Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took the offensive, using the press frenzy over the criminal referral to attack Clinton's patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to the Soviet Union in 1970. With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his once-formidable lead shrink. Panic spread through the Clinton campaign.

is Newsweek mainstream enough for you, Captain?

note this as well, from the same link (emphasis added): "On March 21 [of 2008], the [state] department discovered that single breaches . . . had occurred in passport files for Hillary Clinton and John McCain" (as well as for Barack Obama)

& yet you choose to believe that this "citizenship" bullsh!t was newly minted for the exclusive harassment of Barack Obama

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:53 PM EST
Parent


or course (none / 0)
thats far worse than being a kenyan neo colonialist socialist manchurian candidate

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:56:32 PM EST
Parent
Actually, (5.00 / 1)
Yes, being accused of murder IS worse than being called a socialist.

by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:01:15 PM EST
Parent
right (none / 0)
and what to you think the ratio would be of the number of people who believed Clinton killed Vince Foster to the number of people who believe Obama was secretly a foreign muslim?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:04:31 PM EST
Parent
Don't know - neither do you (5.00 / 1)
Not that it's relevant.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:22:35 PM EST
Parent


Plus, Clinton WAS called a socialist too! (none / 0)


by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:18:17 PM EST
Parent


Now you sound like a moron (5.00 / 5)
Honestly. This is the stupidest series of comments EVER at Talk Left.

So stupid that I am not banning myself for insulting you.

You deserve it.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:43:38 PM EST
Parent

Im happy (none / 0)
to give you the work

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:43:07 PM EST
Parent


Murder?!? (5.00 / 1)
thats far worse than being a kenyan neo colonialist socialist manchurian candidate

Uh, ... yeah.

It kinda is...

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:21:05 PM EST
Parent


They went after Clinton badly (none / 0)
I think the Obama administration has benefited from that history.  I think they are seriously prepared for such attacks now in ways we can only guess.

They (Republicans) were saner in approaching the nation then though.  They were somewhat serious about serving the people, not wholly owned by the rich like they are now.  I can't help thinking after watching this Republican primary if some of the Supreme Court isn't really sorry about Citizens United now because it is blowing up the Republican party and nobody can tell me it isn't draining available coffers dry very early on too?  I myself really don't care if millionaire Republicans drain themselves dry throwing every last penny at each other right now though.  I'm sort of cheering that on :)

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:45 PM EST
Parent

look (none / 0)
lets be honest
I liked Clinton a lot be he was his own worst enemy.  
thought experiment:  try to imagine what would happen if Obama was caught having sex with an intern in the oval office.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:20 PM EST
Parent
Well Juan ....(pregnant pause ) (none / 0)
Are we talking about a white intern or a black intern or a brown intern :)?  There are different punishments for some people for that offense :)

by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:25:10 PM EST
Parent
i'm with Bill Maher (5.00 / 1)
& his analysis of Monicagate - Maher says what really brought Clinton down is that he f^cked a Jew on Easter

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:51 PM EST
Parent

Well Juan .... (none / 0)
if that really is your name

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:42:49 PM EST
Parent





in addition (none / 0)
those ridiculous against the clintons were not taken seriously by anyone but the fringe.  this year we had a leading republican candidate for president who made it central to his appeal

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:59:37 PM EST
Parent
now you just sound foolish (5.00 / 2)
Clinton was impeached

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:02:08 PM EST
Parent
because (none / 0)
HE HAD SEX WITH AN INTERN IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:06 PM EST
Parent
no, that is not why (5.00 / 1)
but i think i understand why you believe that

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:06:21 PM EST
Parent
of course (none / 0)
it was the perjury

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:08:01 PM EST
Parent
yeah, that was the other excuse (none / 0)
really, Captain, i am quite surprised to see you clutching your pearls this way over HAVING SEX WITH AN INTERN IN THE OVAL OFFICE!

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:21 PM EST
Parent
funny (none / 0)
I am actually NOT surprised that you would equate the problems Obama has had compared to the self inflicted ones Clinton had.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:22 PM EST
Parent
no (5.00 / 1)
you misunderstand (perhaps because i miscommunicate)

i am equating two concerted efforts by the GOP & its partisans, during the current Democratic administration & the last one, to delegitimize a democratically elected Democratic president

it does not matter & would not have mattered if the "problems" seized upon are or were self-inflicted or not - the goal is the same

& by the way, there is NO chance that Obama will be impeached for anything at all, partly because of what the GOP did to Clinton, so in that sense Obama has it easier than Bill Clinton

unless you think being asked for your birth certificate is even more heinous than having the characteristic "bent" of your erect p3nis described in published journalistic accounts

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:22:58 PM EST
Parent






NOT (5.00 / 1)
an intern.  Get some facts straight; don't quote  RedState.

by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:06:50 PM EST
Parent



You sound misinformed at best (5.00 / 4)
Idiotic at worst.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:41:25 PM EST
Parent


wasn't Vince Foster murdered (none / 0)
by You Know Who? the First Lady?

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:36 PM EST
Parent
whatever (none / 0)
the point is no one but the fringe nut cases believed it and it was never covered in the main stream media except as a source of humor.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:14:32 PM EST
Parent
Wasn't it one of the topics of the special (5.00 / 1)
prosecutor, or at least a congressional investigation? I'd call that taking it seriously.  

From Wikipedia:

Investigations by a coroner and Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, in a 58-page report released in 1994, also concluded that Foster had committed suicide.[12] Conspiracy theories of a cover-up still persisted, some of which were promulgated by the Arkansas Project. After a three-year investigation, Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr[19][20] released a report in 1997 also concluding that the death was a suicide.[12]

In addition, two investigations by the U.S. Congress found that Foster committed suicide.[12]



by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:20:56 PM EST
Parent
come on (none / 0)
Ken Star was a national joke.  I suppose you can say that technically the fact that it appeared in his report means it was taken seriously but i hope you will not argue that it permeated the national conciseness the way Obama and the legitimacy of his citizenship has

seriously.  what percentage of voters would you say took the possibility that Hillary killed Vince Foster seriously?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:38:06 PM EST
Parent

As I recall (none / 0)
the mainstream GOP at least paid it lip service as if they believed there was at least a chance it was true, much like they do the birthers now. And they also paid real tax dollars to investigate it.

Of course, if they were in complete control of Congress now they may very well be investigating the birther stuff now.

I really do believe ot was at least as bad as the birther thing.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:15:29 PM EST
Parent




That is so wrong (5.00 / 4)
It is hard to respond.

You simply do not remember or do not know what you are talking about.

by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:40:37 PM EST
Parent

you think large (none / 0)
numbers of voters believed Hillary killed Vince Foster.  to the point anything like the number that suspect Obamas citizenship?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:49:33 PM EST
Parent
I would just say if that is true (none / 0)
its truly amazing that she was almost the democratic nominee for president.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:00 PM EST
Parent
Howdy, that was one of the biggest (5.00 / 3)
arguments against her - not that she actually did anything, but that the right would bring up all this crapola again. Even I did not support her at first because I just did not want to go through the BS again.

The miracle is that she was willing to take it.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:20:01 PM EST
Parent

when they were talking about (none / 0)
the "stuff" it honestly never occurred to me that murder allegations would be part of what they were talking about.  healthcare, co-presidency etc.

not murder.  but perhaps I give people to much credit.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:23:07 PM EST
Parent

Yes, you do! In this case anyway. (5.00 / 3)
They absolutely would have brought it all in. No doubt in my mind. All their fake sympathy with her, so sanctimonious. BS, all of it.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:30 PM EST
Parent

Seriously, you think the 'Clinton Fatigue' (5.00 / 3)
was about arguments over health care and the co-presidency? Oh Capt, you make me smile!

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:00 PM EST
Parent
Clinton Fatigue (none / 0)
was clearly a broad subject.  but I do not believe that, for example, any opposition candidate would have made - as Trump did with birterism - the murder of Vince Foster and the allegations against Hillary or Bill for that matter a campaign issue.

I dont.  I remember those days well.  I had the nutcase websites bookmarked and followed them closely.  Clinton Fatigue meant many things but they did not mean that any substantial portion of the electorate took the murder allegations seriously.  which is not to say the websites would not have flourished if she had become the nominee.

that is my position and I am sticking to it.
now I am going to dinner.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:45:26 PM EST
Parent

I'll just add one more thing to the trip (none / 0)
down memory lane....I don't remember Newt Gingrich disavowing any of the crazier allegations.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:14:50 PM EST
Parent
OK, I had to look (5.00 / 1)
just to come around full circle....

Scaife, in particular, is one of the major backers of Newt Gingrich. Interestingly enough, Gingrich's view on Vince Foster seemed to dovetail with Scaife's following Scaife's pumping of thousands of dollars into Gingrich's GOPAC's coffers.

No, not mainstream at all....

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:19:30 PM EST
Parent

just because Newt (none / 0)
or Dan Burton (known widely as watermelon Dan for his Hillary related ballistic experiments in his back yard) believed it doenst mean the belief was widely held.

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:00:05 PM EST
Parent

behold the gravitas (none / 0)
of watermelon Dan

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:03:23 PM EST
Parent
I had one other thought about this (none / 0)
lets all imagine that this is a video of a republican opposition leader in the clinton era being asked on Meet the Press if he believes Hillary killed Vince Foster.

instead of the speaker of the house being asked if he thinks the president is a citizen and if we all think his answer would have been the same.



by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:49:14 PM EST
Parent




He didn't (5.00 / 1)
He was instrumental in putting out lies about Waco that Timothy McVeigh swallowed wholesale. Newt was every bit as crazy back then as he is now.

by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:19:45 PM EST
Parent

touche (none / 0)


by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:28:38 PM EST
Parent




well, by 2008, nobody (5.00 / 3)
even had to bring up all those allegations, since they had already been hotly discussed & widely disseminated

& they didn't even need to be true in order for Democrats, many of whom were children & teens during Bill Clinton's two terms, to claim that Hillary Clinton would be an unsuitable presidential candidate because she was just such a, you know, polarizing figure . . .

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:36:09 PM EST
Parent










I remember Clinton ... (5.00 / 4)
... being accused of serial murder, cocaine smuggling, fathering a child with a prostitute, being the first pardoned felon to be elected POTUS, and a few dozen others ...

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:23:41 PM EST
Parent
Here's where I struggle with all this (none / 0)
I don't remember that.

Now granted, I was a kid at the time and certainly not following politics the way I am now, but it's not like I was living in a bubble where politics weren't discussed.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying it probably wasn't as common or widespread.

There was a poll at one point that had 25% of Americans thinking Obama was foreign born and not eligible to be president.  How many people really thought that Clinton did all that?

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:28:50 PM EST
Parent

well, that's the thing (5.00 / 3)
maybe you just had to be there

i have memories of Joe McCarthy from when i was a kid, but i had no real idea how bad he was & what he represented until i got older & could talk with people who shared their adult experiences from that era


by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:16 PM EST
Parent

fair enough (none / 0)
I fully recognize that my political awareness in the 90s was not as high as it would have been if I were an adult, or even what it was during his second term when I was a teenager.

It actually makes me think of the "history gap" that we all grow up with to some extent, of the things that happen when you are either very young or just before you were born.  Things earlier than that you learn about in school and things later than that you learn about in life - but it's hard to get a real perspective on the other years without seeking it out yourself.

For me that pretty much encompases the 80s and early/mid 90s.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:57:07 PM EST
Parent

I didn't know you were that young! (none / 0)
Good for you - I thought you were old like me.

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:21:25 PM EST
Parent
27 (none / 0)
feels older every day :)

I was 8 when Clinton got elected. As much as I was surrounded by politics at a young age, I was still 8.

I do remember whitewater though.

by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:10 PM EST
Parent





Not sure how you can't remember it (5.00 / 3)
... unless you were, as you state, young and not into politics at the time, but it was very real.

The Clinton Body Count was a conspiracy theory pushed on the internet, talk radio, and even a video series promoted by Jerry Fallwell ("The Clinton Chronicles").  It was also pushed by a Republican Congressman who was pushing for a Congressional investigation.

There was another video series - "Obstruction of Justice: The Mena Connection" - also heavily promoted by wingers, talk radio, Drudge, etc.

He was accused of fathering a child with an AA prostitute.

Also accused of being the first ex-felon elected POTUS.

All of these claims (and many more) were widely disseminated during Clinton's term, although perhaps not as thoroughly documented on the (relatively young) internet.  They were discussed ad nauseum on talk radio and Drudge - probably the biggest website on the web in the late 90s.  There were national TV commercials run for the "Clinton Chronicles".

In any event, I'm not sure how many people believed the myths about Clinton, but given the influence of talk radio, Drudge, Newsmax among conservatives, as well as their willingness to believe these conspiracies, it wouldn't surprise me if 25% of people believed it (22% believed Vince Foster's death was a murder).

Not that it's really any kind of way to measure the opposition or cooperation of Republican legislators with either of them.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:08:01 PM EST
Parent

Yes, and there was "mysterious" plane (5.00 / 4)
crash of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and, of course, the small plane crash onto the south lawn of the White House that was somehow Clinton's failure at security.  

by KeysDan on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:42:42 PM EST
Parent

Normally (1.67 / 3)
The conspiracy theories don't fuel movements within the country.  Obama's birth did.

There was a movement to get Clinton but he was kind of screwing around in the oval office so what can you do?

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:30:37 PM EST
Parent

read through this thread (5.00 / 6)
you will see documented instances of attempts to "get Clinton" not only from his first day in the White House but also as early as the campaign

it was during the campaign that Bill Clinton's U.S. citizenship was first challenged (by way of the smear that he had tried to renounce it & was a Soviet spy), & thus his patriotism - this smear made it into Newsweek, where it was given serious treatment

since the 1990s, a GOP goal has been to delegitimize &, if possible, unseat any democratically elected Democratic president

they did it pre-emptively to Gore in Florida, & they actually impeached Clinton

the attacks on Obama are repugnant, but they are not novel or unique, nor are they in the mainstream the way the attacks on President Clinton and the First Lady were

good god, even the blog where P^MA was born will not allow any comments about Obama's supposedly Kenyan birth &/or supposedly dual U.S./Indonesian citizenship

by contrast, my mother, 75 at the time, was an avid reader of the Starr Report, a runaway best-seller when it was published

by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:45:53 PM EST
Parent




Take my word for it - it was that bad. (5.00 / 3)


by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:17:10 PM EST
Parent

he certainly was (none / 0)
on nutty right wing websites that no one took seriously.  

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:34:56 PM EST
Parent
Maybe you don't remember (5.00 / 3)
... the daily discussion of conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's suicide on national talk radio programs (Limbaugh, Liddy, Ollie North, etc.), where several million listeners took those conspiracy theories very seriously.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:13:59 PM EST
Parent

and on the Chris Matthews show... (5.00 / 4)
I really am worried about your memory, Capt!!!

by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:16:35 PM EST
Parent






Disagree (5.00 / 3)
They opposed virtually every one of his proposals during his first term, and only became marginally more cooperative in his second term, particularly after they got burned in the '95 shutdown/showdown and their subsequent losses in the '96 election.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:48:00 PM EST
Parent
see comment (none / 0)
#30

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:50 PM EST
Parent
See comment number 81 (5.00 / 1)
Not that kooky conspiracy theories are any measure of how much cooperation a POTUS received from the opposition party.

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:25:42 PM EST
Parent



as did FDR (none / 0)
for that matter.  Economy was not as "difficult" either.

by vicndabx on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:53 PM EST
Parent


Cal 1942 v. Koshembos (none / 0)
Topic: Clinton.

Go!

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:45:07 PM EST
Parent

You used to be ... (5.00 / 1)
... one of those kids in the back of the class yelling, "Fight, ... fight, ... fight"?

... weren't you?

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:49:39 PM EST
Parent

It sounds like the kind of kid (5.00 / 3)
who went with "Let's you and him fight.  I'll hold your coat".

by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:39:01 PM EST
Parent

this started out as a reasonable (none / 0)
discussion
would it be to much to ask for that to continue and for you to make whatever point you have to make without name calling?

by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:51:42 PM EST
Parent
Yeah ... ABG's comment ... (5.00 / 1)
... (that I was responding to) was a "reasonable discussion".

Pffttt ...

by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:16:46 PM EST
Parent

I was just kidding by the way (none / 0)
sort of.

I just want to see someone other than me battle it out.  People are bored with my battles.

by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:30:49 PM EST
Parent







oh lord ... while I suspected him of just being (none / 0)
ANOTHER 1 of that big subset of big credentialed college grads who fit the class of 'my Ivy sh*t doesn't stink', that complete piece of crap AHIP-care welfare drove all nails into my coffin labeled HOPE.

(BTW - while Ivy grads are a small % of the population, there are a lot of them, and I know a LOT of decent Ivy grads ... I even sleep with 1)

For decades the professional managerial ba$e of the Democratic Party has been able to afford little compromise after little compromise. For this 'ba$e', coming from the TOP 20% of income, they really really haven't been hit with the reality that there is a highway into poverty and NOT a sidewalk out. (Suze Orman)

The teetering at the top ba$e can shout "lessor of two evil" all they want - and it ain't too hard, given how unhinged NewtMitt PerryPalin have been and are - BUT -

they better HOPE lots of busy busy people see the pretty HOPE sign and persuaded to show up against the boot stompers.

EVERYTHING 0bummer & his crowd say makes me ill - I expected raygun-cheney to lie, see, cuz they're all thieves and how the hell else can they steal?

I can't take anymore of the DLC - Third Way sell outs, and they will get NO pennies or dimes, NO seconds of time, NO votes - and plenty of

'Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt'

rmm.  

by seabos84 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:00:24 PM EST


Comments at 200 (none / 0)
This thread is closed.

by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:44:52 AM EST

The Long Game | 201 comments (201 topical)

WWW Talk To Action



Honored to be here, and legalization of pot progress-hurdles
Briefly, I am thrilled to be permitted the "diary" honor, and hope to prove that to be a good decision. To dive right in to a topic, I'd like to share my current thinking......
Lfrieling (0 comments)
Mr. President, the answer is 'No.'
Mr. President, there has been a whole lot of strange and wacky stuff going on. Heck, it looks like your attempt to imitate "W" Bush in foreign policy, except you added steroids. That's only......
jeffinalabama (3 comments)
"The Town"-Not What it's Cracked Up to Be:
Ben Affleck's 3 year old movie, "The Town", starring Ben Affleck himself as the lead character, as well as the director, Jeremy Renner, Owen Burke and "Slaine" i. e. George Carroll, is not all......
mplo (3 comments)
How I Came to Love West Side Story:
After writing a whole diary about how I came to love West Side Story and just about finishing it, only to have it disappear on me just out of the blue (yes, this has......
mplo (4 comments)
Why I'm Against the Death Penalty:
The Death Penalty has always been a controversial topic, but it's become even more controversial nowadays, during the post-9/11 era that we're now going through.  There are people on the Left as well as......
mplo (5 comments)
A short primer on buying and selling guns - part I
The discussion on this site (and others) has been suffering from a lack of accurate information on how people buy and sell guns and the laws and regulations that govern them when they do.......
scribe (7 comments)
Some notes on Health Care reform.
First, it works. The benefits outweigh any amount of problems. The deal is simple. Pass something, then go back and modify it. In reality, the Republicans in congress have no willingness as a party......
jeffinalabama (10 comments)
How did we get here? Part one of an examination
Foreword: This diary is the first in a series examining, inter alia, the political economy of the United States. Much of what you read here will be historical, and general in application.  The drive......
jeffinalabama (2 comments)
Time for analysis, with your help, please
I'm in-between some major treatments, but I woke up today with a clear mind and some energy. I'd like to start adding some analysis from the margins (I remain marginalized, not simply by choice,......
jeffinalabama (8 comments)
The Banks Are Made of Marble
And banks want one thing: profits. It is easier to get a loan at a community bank or a credit union, but either wants their vig. you tube ......
jeffinalabama (13 comments)
'Advanced' Civilization: The Long Party is Over
Crossposted from Antemedius "Our current way of life is unsustainable. We are the first species that will have to self-consciously impose limits on ourselves if we are to survive." -- Robert Jensen In 2010......
Edger (3 comments)
Violence at Occupy Protests Becoming A Serious Problem Across America
Crossposted from Antemedius "Occupy LA has brought needed attention to the growing disparities in our country and I look forward to its ongoing efforts to build an economy that works for everyone," [Los Angeles......
Edger (1 comment)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.