home

Clintonomics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Greg Sargent reports:

Bill [Clinton] will be cheered by the speech Obama gave moments ago in Sarasota, Florida, where he basically said that a vote for him was a vote for a Bill Clinton economy. Here's what he said:

The average working family is $2,000 dollars poorer now than when George Bush took office. When Bill Clinton was president, the average wages and incomes went up $7,500 dollars. So I've got an economic plan that is similar to Bill Clinton's and Senator McCain's got an economic plan similar to George Bush's. Look and see what works and what doesn't.

True enough. Obama should have been saying this earlier though.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Thursday Open Thread | The New Lieberman >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clintonomics | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Video goodness (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    When Obama was not a Democrat.  When Republicans were the way to win.  

    IOW (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    Will the real Obama please stand up?

    Parent
    Your source link gives you away (1.71 / 7) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    PUMA shilling.

    Parent
    ooohhhh...now we cannot use (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:51:23 PM EST
    youtube?   Andargen...turn me in to the authorities.  I am scared.  

    Parent
    Nope (2.00 / 5) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    &eurl=http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

    But it doesn't matter--you'll be on to something else next week.

    Parent

    So friggin what? (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    It was the link to the video, I read everything.  What the heck is wrong with people?  "PUMA shilling".  What are you gonna do report me to the UNAmerican activities.  

    Parent
    Well, there's our dose (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    of attacking the messenger for today.  Sheesh.

    Parent
    I was referring to Andgarden of course. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:57:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I know dk (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem is the message (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    But you knew that, of course.

    Parent
    And what is the message? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    Do tell us?  

    Parent
    Your message? (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    heh, that's your job.

    Parent
    Do you know what (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    attacking the messenger means, Andgarden?  

    Parent
    Obviously you think (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    I have some secret message, you threw the PUMA accusation.  

    Parent
    The message is quite obvious (2.25 / 4) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    but I will not articulate it for you.

    I think the ridiculousness of your position speaks for itself, and I won't discuss this any further. Full stop.

    Parent

    But you're fine with the actual (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    statement Obama made in the video?  Is that part of the full stop too?  Or is discussing substance not as fun as attacking messengers and calling people ridiculous?  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    In fact, I have criticized it in the past. But suddenly we have it raised again.

    Parent
    Well, it was a comment (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by dk on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    in a post concerning Obama's stated position toward the economic policies of the Clinton administration.  There is some relevance.  People can disagree on what it all means, but wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss that rather than just attack people who bring it up?

    Parent
    How's law school going for you? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Very well, thank you Stellaaa (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:21:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Sad puppy you are. (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST


    Parent
    that adorable cat made my day! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    thanks for posting the mini puma :)

    lovelovelove cats :))

    Parent

    So, um, the fact that it was (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    on Riverdaughter means it never actually happened?  Is that it?

    Switch to decaf or something.  You're getting a teensy bit authoritarian.


    Parent

    Oh c'mon - (none / 0) (#20)
    by smott on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    That was RD ref'ing this link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

    Parent
    Oh, andgarden (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    A full one-third of the comments in this entire thread are attached to your threadjack.  I really wish you would just stop trying to play PUMA Police.  It's not worth it and it takes the discussion nowhere.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    for Freudians, it's fascinating.

    Parent
    Yes, he should have said it long ago. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    However, had he done so, he would not be the Dem pres. candidate and the (likely) next pres.

    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, Stellaaa, when you (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    read BTD's post was your immediate reaction Grrrrr?  Mine was.

    Parent
    I am way past grrrr.... ing by now .... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    Had to laugh, actually. Cause there are so many worse and more scary things to cry about.

    What an odd 2-year campaign 2008 this was -

    Parent

    For your amusement, (none / 0) (#49)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    please feel free to respond to my Google search.  Oh, Google does Greek.  You should try it.

    Parent
    Per babelfish, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    "Grrrrr" in English translates to "Grrrrr" in Greek.  

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#53)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    However, Google doesn't concur.  Please verify.

    Parent
    Prove it. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Prove Google's concurrence; (none / 0) (#66)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    you posted it.

    Parent
    Do yu want it in Greek? (3.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST


    Parent
    let's have it ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST


    Parent
    In Greek: (none / 0) (#46)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    Σ'αγαπώ

    Parent
    Palin syndrome in Greek for you (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    ότι η κυβερνήτης της Αλάσκας, Σάρα Πέιλιν, είναι «πολύ ριψοκίνδυνη» για να βρεθεί μόλις ένα βήμα μακριά από την προεδρία των ΗΠΑ

    Parent
    I thought this thread was about (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    Obama's support for Clinton economics?  Quoting Palin in Greek doesn't change Obama's postitions or the Clinton legacy.

    Parent
    He is telling you he loves you (none / 0) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    Grrrr in greek is

    ΑΣΙΚΤΙΡ

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 06:43:30 PM EST
    Per Babelfish (which I so much enjoy):

    [ASIKTIR]

    Parent

    Why not? (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    It's all about marketing.  You can sell anything you want, any message, any mantra, anything.

    Real audacity would have been stealing Hillary's thunder by claiming to be the next Bill Clinton, the "second" black president.  Instead he spent a lot of time avoiding any mention of "Clinton" unless it was "Bush-Clinton".

    Parent

    I don't understand your post at all - (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    as is it makes no sense to me.
    Please elaborate:

    "However, had he done so, he would not be the Dem pres. candidate and the (likely) next pres."

    ----
    I happen to believe that the opposite is true.

    Parent

    honestly? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by dws3665 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    You don't understand?

    Had Obama not run a campaign of contrast from HRC and Clintonomics, he would not have defeated Hillary in the primaries. She would have won and been the nominee. That, I believe, is what ChiTown is saying (at least in English - I've got no idea what the Greek says!)

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    Succinctly my point.
    BTW, my Greek, that I Googled, says "I love you."  (thought that would be an easy search, and it was.

    Parent
    I understand your post, dws3665! thanks (none / 0) (#59)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    I just don't agree with that at all. I stated as much earlier.

    It's quite amazing to me that STILL any Dem who followed the primaries would even think that ...

    okay ... I am sooo done with this campaign .... byebye

    Parent

    I didn't say I agreed (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dws3665 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    But I thought his point was pretty clear, and it is a reasonable argument to make.

    Parent
    Hi bridget; (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    There's an information portal called "Google".  I won't waste your time, please don't waste mine.  Google it!

    Parent
    thanks for another laugh .... lolol... ;-) (none / 0) (#47)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST


    Parent
    For your amusement, (none / 0) (#50)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    Please feel free to respond to my Google search.  Oh, Google does Greek.  You should try it.

    Parent
    Google in Greek (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:02:36 PM EST
     Googlopoulos

    Still confused.  

    Parent

    Obviously. (none / 0) (#63)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    Was that an attempt at an ethnic slur?

    Parent
    No...but I can read it can you? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM EST


    Parent
    I've got Google, (none / 0) (#73)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    oh, and ancestry.

    Parent
    Dr. Mollyy, (none / 0) (#61)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    Please explain your 1 rating.  Do I recall a Molly from this site and MyDD?

    Parent
    Total nonsense (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST


    Parent
    To be fair (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by smott on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    I thought Obama made repeated statements in the primary saying that Clintonomics was a return to the past. I believe when stumping here in PA he was more specific and actually came out and said there was "no big difference between the Bush years and the Clinton years".

    Have to look up the exact quote.

    So his affection for a Clinton economy would seem a recent development....

    But in keeping (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by smott on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    ...with his affection for expedience.

    Parent
    Not true (sort of) (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    When you read about his economic policies, he took much of his ideas from the Clinton presidency, and said so, but then disagreed with certain aspects of it (and said so).  

    There was a great article in the NY times about his economic philosophy.

    Parent

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    Somehow I missed that during the primaries.  (Please accept my apologies for dredging up the primaries.  BTD, it's your fault! :) )

    Parent
    True Enough (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gtesta on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    But the economic growth of the 1990's won't be able to be replicated if we continue with our massive military expenditures, subsidies of investment banking losses v. legitimate commerical banking subsidies and a strong commitment to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

    Obama really does need to stop with both the "rebuilding the military" schtick and the "let's draw down Iraq, so we can escalate Afghanistan" rhetoric.    

    And the "Tax Cuts for Almost Everyone" (none / 0) (#91)
    by BrianJ on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 03:11:24 AM EST
    Palaver, for that matter.

    THe money simply isn't there!  And nothing saps political capital faster than lying to your constituents.  Obama's promise of tax cuts he knows he cannot deliver are going to do him serious damage in dealing with Congress.

    Parent

    does this mean (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by bocajeff on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    we should elect a Newt Gingrich-like Congress as well? Congress actually passes the bills.

    With all the acrimony during the 1990's it is amazing that they actually got things done to the point that we refer to them as the good old days...

    Bah! (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by gtesta on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    The road to fiscal sanity started with Bill Clinton's first budget.  The republicans voted against it on party lines, the tie breaking vote come down to a freshman democratic member from PA, Majorie Magolies-Mezvinsky.  As she was voting yes, the republicans were chanting, Naa naa naa naa hey hey goodbye.  And she did lose in '94.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Margolies-Mezvinsky

    So can we please stop with the whole "the republican congress was responsible for the 1990's economy" B.S.

    Parent

    The rapid expansion... (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    of all things internet will do that.

    In 1992 there were how many people using and buying sh*t on the internet....5?  In 2000 there were millions upon millions.  Even Republicans and Democrats couldn't screw up that goldmine.

    Parent

    How is the Big (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by mg7505 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    Orange taking this? Can they stand it? Or have they already gone into another CDS convulsion?

    Nonetheless I'm glad Obama said this. I'll be even more happy when he (and Congress!) take action on it.

    They love Bill and Hillary now. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST


    Parent
    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope. At least most of them do. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    The old-timers seem to be trying tell the newer ones that they always knew the Clintons were good Democrats who would support Obama. The newer (younger?) ones seemed surprised and "forgive" them now.

    I truly think some of them had never seen a campaign before.

    I got a huge kick out of this...they are really upset at Campbell Brown for going on the Daily Show (I think that's the one) and saying that Fox has O'Reilly and MSNBC has KO and CNN is the middle. They are so mad that she compared KO to O'Reilly. I guess they didn't hear Obama compare him to Hannity! :)

    Parent

    Not the same group (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    many Clinton supporters (like me) left then came back.

    Parent
    Well I will never go back (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by smott on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    Sadly the list is long, not just Kos, but TPM, Huff, even FDL...among others.

    Parent
    i don't blame you (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    the ugly was thick there.

    Parent
    "now" is right. (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    Check back in six months to see who they love and who is on their sh!t list.

    Parent
    in other shocking news: (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by dws3665 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Politician makes statement that advances own political prospects.

    Film at 11.

    (This isn't a slap at Obama - at all - but how it surprises people that once the economy became THE issue in the election that he invokes the Clinton years amazes me. It's what they do.)

    Bet McCain wishes he could do that! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    He could invoke er...Bush the Elder?  Bush the FUBAR?  Reagan?

    Parent
    Well ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dws3665 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    Party of Lincoln, anyone? ;-)

    Parent
    Productivity v Wages (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    Our teenagers and 20-somethings are slackers for a reason.  Over the past 20 years, productivity is up, and wages are down.   It's officially not worth going to work.  And Guitar Hero is really fun.  Selling weed is the only job with a future. Our kids are rational actors in a broken economic model.

    On the other hand, we are so productive that if we ever did have socialism in America, we'd all be driving Porsches and working three days a week.  The wealth has been redistributed already - the WRONG WAY.

    The only thing that 'trickles down' is P*ss.

    Look, (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    a small clip showing the stance a few months ago, a contrast to the current position, should not have brought on this reaction.  Cripes.  Who said anything about cutting his legs?

    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cpa1 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    I'm with you for a lot more than the one clip.  I can't believe how many never watched the entire 49 minutes.  But we came to the dance with Obama....

    Parent
    what's the change in position? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Iris on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM EST
    Reagan did sort of change the trajectory of America, after the end of the Carter administration.  That's just objectively true.  The White House, the courts, foreign policy, was all set on a much more conservative course.  It was also a bad course -- the notion that "government is the problem" (except when it comes to other countries) -- because it essentially led us to where we are today.  Bill Clinton did a great job and made some important changes, but he was hindered by a recalcitrant GOP-led Congress and impeachment.  When Bush 43 took office, the Republicans essentially picked up where they left off: attacking Iraq, dismantling/privatizing government and deregulating like mad, and building up a more repressive national security state at home.  

    This doesn't negate Obama believing that Reagan's course was the wrong one for America, and that the Clinton administration is a model from which important lessons can be learned.  Hillary Clinton's agenda, Bill Clinton's agenda and Obama's agenda are virtually identical, even if they have pursued it in different ways.  If Obama is elected, he'll have 8 years of success to draw on, stronger legislative support and a mandate on a number of issues.  Health Care, Climate change/energy, jobs, foreclosures, terrorism, and now even the financial system; now is the time to correct the GOP excesses and set us back on the right path.  

    If McCain were elected, we'd essentially still be on the Reagan course, so to speak.  It's just that we'd get to see it go through its "last throes" while holding on to the reins of power.   John McCain and Sarah Palin running around calling Barack Obama a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, saying a vote for Obama means "death to Israel" is actually the perfect fulfillment of the tradition that Ronald Reagan represented and furthered.  

    Parent

    So Clinton's okay this week? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by mexboy on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    I thought Reagan and the Republican party were the party of good  ideas?

    So after bashing the Clinton legacy throughout the primary, he's now a fan?

    This just makes me angrier!

    Well it is about time!! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:08:15 PM EST
    Obama has seen the light. BC is the man!

    Do you think Bill's getting (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    anything out of this?

    I hope this is a useful closer for Ohio and Florida.  We only have a few days to go, so hopefully we won't have to go through a slew of poorly researched articles and bad punditry about whether Obama can REALLY bring us back to the 90s or whether his plan is REALLY like Clinton's and whether McCain's plan is REALLY like Clinton's or not, etc.  You know the drill.

    Clintonomics | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment