home

Would A Dem Say This?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:31:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only and post edited

Would a Democrat say:

There's really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there's not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when Clinton was president, and in this decade when Bush was President.

Or would a Democrat dispute that point? In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld - they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November.

Update: comments now closed

< PA College Newspaper Endorses Hillary | Electability >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Would A Dem Say This? | 273 comments (273 topical)
    A Reagan Dem would say this (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    and has been saying it for many months now.

    Only a "transformative" Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    Democrat would say it.

    [ Parent ]
    Broad Brush (none / 0) (#249)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    BTD.  

    Way to generalize.  Is that all 14M people that voted for him???

    [ Parent ]

    It is him and his blogworld supporters (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    at least that is what I read BTD saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't know if a Democrat would say it (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    but no actually sentient being would believe it.
    I guess Kos voted for Nader.... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jerry on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree, no (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    a democrat would not say this, a fair minded person wouldn't either.  Clinton's economic policies did  wonderful things for our country.  

    [ Parent ]
    No one in the reality-based (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    community would say that.

    That's a kool-aid drinker talking.

    Not just Democrats (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Raven15 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    ....but anyone with their powers of observation and reasoning intact would dispute it.

    Geebus J Jones... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:36:25 PM EST
    Excellent quote from the Big Dog. the response from the diarist? not so much...

    I've never been a member of the Obama Party (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They are caught in their web (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    Web of distortion will catch up with you.  I think they are coming up empty on their vision for the Democratic Party.  A party has history.  It has a basis,  You cannot say, I come here to build the party, let me bury it first.  

    But (none / 0) (#241)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    that seems to be exactly what they're saying. And doing.


    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton was right (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    The younger dems don't understand or know that things actually were better for the working class under his presidency.  I am not sure why the youth vote for Obama has largely disparaged the Clinton presidency. Obama does it too, but no where near the exent of some of his supporters online.

    They remember the BJs (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    And that's about all they know about history and power.

    [ Parent ]
    They want Obama to have b_j_s? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    They don't want Clinton to have bjs?  Is that what this is all about?

    [ Parent ]
    I always thought (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:59:00 PM EST
    that most of the Clinton-deranged pundits were jealous of Monica and Hillary.

    And yes, that includes the men, like Chris "Manly Smell Thrill Up My Leg" Matthews.

    [ Parent ]

    That nickname for Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    just made me regurgitate my grilled cheese sandwich!

    But it was still funny.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (none / 0) (#137)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    Tweety is one of my least-favorite sufferers of CDS...;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Could someone explain to me (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    why young people would care about bjs when this generation doesn't even consider it sex?  It is mostly irrelevant in today's dating yscene yet some get so worked up about it. odd.

    [ Parent ]
    mental indolence? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    It's an easy target.

    Many of these young people do not have any meaningful remembrances of the Clinton years, especially policy-wise. But it's easy to point the finger at this incident.

    [ Parent ]

    Because it's only icky if (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    it's with an old guy.  Like, y'know, Bill Clinton, like.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:05:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    they were 8 years old when it happened.
    just like Obama and the Weather Man.

    [ Parent ]
    they don't care anymore than the really (5.00 / 3) (#280)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    care about the war vote or his anti-war speech.  They just need something to be pissed and outraged about.

    [ Parent ]
    But they have more BJs than us oldies do? (none / 0) (#220)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    Is that what it is ageist? Bill was too old to be messing around? The one thing that really shocks me about this generation is when they are sexually judgmental since, as a whole, they are certainly more liberated than we were. Hippies may have talked a good game about free love but we didn't have as many STDs as they do.

    [ Parent ]
    University Teachers (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Josmt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    That's all I can say... my sister got into an argument with her professor because he was basically telling them (his students) a Clinton presidency would be an economy disaster.  Of course not all college professors are like this, but they are out there.

    [ Parent ]
    Hate to say it (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    But it is an ultra-liberal viewpoint that Clinton was the most successful Republican presidency in the past century. No joke.

    It wouldn't surprise me to see University teachers thinking this; Academe does tend to lean left (not that I'm complaining) but you'll find crazies of all stripes teaching out there. (spoken as the son of two teachers, heh).

    [ Parent ]

    HAHAAH.. read my 2:15 comment (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's some coverage of WJC on younger voters (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    "I think there is a big reason there's an age difference in a lot of these polls," he said. "Because once you've reached a certain age, you won't sit there and listen to somebody tell you there's really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there's not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president and in this decade."

    "So I think it's important that we get to the truth of this," Clinton continued, going on to compare his and Bush's record on jobs, family incomes, and other measures. [...] (Bill Clinton: Older voters too savvy to fall for Obama, by Scott Helman, boston.com, April 15, 2008

    )

    (I quoted some other parts of this article to illustrate one of the more ridiculous Obama Rules here in a discussion in this other Talk Left thread)


    [ Parent ]

    Younger vs Older voters (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    I don't consider myself "old: (I'm 39), but I think one of the differences in the demographics is that people with a little more (ahem) "life experience" are less willing to be swayed by just a message. We remember the movie "Jerry MacGuire" - you know - Show me the money!" and Clara from the Wendy's commercial - "Where's the beef?"

    [ Parent ]
    The very liberal wing of the Progressive (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    movement has been taken over by naderites and idealists.I left the big orange, because the Bill Clinton disparaging was so pervasive.  It comes straight out of the right wing play book and these genxers are being played by big media and the right wing to the detriment of the party unity. Once a diarist over there suggested running on the record of financial sucess of BC  to prove to the country that Dems could be trusted with the economy.  Guess what happened?  Thanks David Sirota, Robert Scheer, Jim Hightower, et al.

    [ Parent ]
    They ARE right wingers, many of them. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    DK is dominated by two classes, IMO: paid Obama shills, and GOP tricksters.
    There is no way that so many Obama supporters could have the same talking points down so fast without coordination.


    [ Parent ]
    This is why (none / 0) (#167)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    I left Baby Blue.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good. Too many just don't get that over there, and they fell into the Hillary Hate.

    [ Parent ]

    Who is baby blue? (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:20:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Tax Returns I say (none / 0) (#195)
    by lily15 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    If we demand it of our candidates, then let's demand it from those who seek to influence our votes.  We will find the money then.  The big influential bloggers...let's start asking for their tax returns too.  Chris Matthews might run for the Senate...then let's see his tax returns...and Olbermanns...maybe the influence peddling will reveal itself.  But something is not right.  Obama can't get away from his claims that he takes no money from lobbyists when he takes it from their wives...or otherwise finds ways to skirt the intent of the claim.  This is about hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]
    Cannot rule out a subversive group which has (none / 0) (#136)
    by lily15 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    infiltrated the left for the express purpose of fracturing the Democratic party.  Too much of what I've read on the Obama blogs reeks of right wing talking points...nothing new there at all...which makes me think a concerted effort or plan has been constructed to manipulate low information, young or naive people...finding the fingerprints is the hard part...but its there.  Like a John Grisham novel.  And he, by the way, is a strong Hillary supporter...and says that many of his novels are based on fact...there are many conspiracies he says....and there are just too many loose ends in this story....The fracture of the Democratic Party appears to be the objective.  And it's tough to know who is a hack or a tool.  We know from reviewing Bob Somerby who some of the tools are...their history is plain to see...but others are too new on the scene...It just feels spooky.

    [ Parent ]
    I've wondered about this for a while... (none / 0) (#142)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM EST
    it is just bizarre. I'm not sure ego, misogyny and CDS can really account for it all.

    [ Parent ]
    Naderbot derangment (none / 0) (#277)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    it is the same old same old need to hate something or someone who was in authority.  Everything sucks and only revolution will make things better in their world.  Young people are ripe for that sort of campaign always.

    [ Parent ]
    A Democrat might (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM EST
    at least look at the data.

    My instinct would be to compare the employment stats.

    Median income adjusted for inflation etc.

    Given the differences in stats that existed between the late 80s and the bulk of the 1990s I'd be inclined to dispute the quoted assertion.

    If the assertion was refering to health insurance or particular social indices in the subsequent paragraphs to bakc up the claim i'd like to see some footnotes.

    If you're serious interested in the answer to (none / 0) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    the median income question, how about this link?

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    I'd be happy enough (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    to saythat the Clinton years were good years.

    And leave it at that.

    [ Parent ]

    The study Krugman linked to... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    makes me wish I'd paid more attention in my econ class some year back.

    [ Parent ]
    Both parents (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    only had work one job apiece, day care was slightly less expensive and hedge fund managers were simply omniscient as opposed to being completely deified.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it might be more apporiate to ask (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    would a obamaniac [and Obama dem] say this..

    And I bet he would say, "The decade that Clinton was president was worse than the decade Bush was president, because it is during that time the people started getting bitter, and clung to guns and gods... and Bush was more of the same politics like Clinton."

    its divide and conquer (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    Obama blogworld - they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed

    I think they believe THAT is the ONLY way they can defeat Hillary Clinton.. they can't cling to Clinton Legacy while trying to punch Hillary?

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo. (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    A true Dem doesn't attempt to destroy the Party to gratify his/her overwhelming personal ambitions.

    Ironic that the Obamans are doing the exact same thing they always accuse Hillary of doing.

    Projection - it's not just for movie theaters any more.

    heh. good one. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. :-) (none / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well-said (none / 0) (#240)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    And I often wonder: what on earth will Markos do if Hillary is the nominee? He can't realistically support her after relentlessly tearing her down. He's been fairly confident that this can't possibly happen, but he may have misjudged it....

    Kids....

    [ Parent ]

    BTD .... was this a trick question? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    Because the quote you snipped comes from Bill Clinton though he was implying that's what Obama was saying.

    Was this just to test if TL users ever click on links?

    Quote was snipped is the key (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    so compare what Bill said and what this snip says.

    [ Parent ]
    Key to what? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    I am not following what folks are saying here.

    Can the words I present NOT be judged on their own? Why for heaven's sakes?

    [ Parent ]

    Bill C. argued against the snip (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    you give, as do you, and as do I.  

    This commenter seems to be missing that and trying to go back to the original and claiming that means you disagree with Clinton.  So I'm saying that commenter is trying a cute trick but just that -- as you edited well to frame the focus (the key point, in my term).  

    [ Parent ]

    Btw, BTD, you get quoted well (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    on this by Tom Watson at his blog, linked from Marsh.

    Btw to others, Watson has more to say about this worth reading, too.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the link is bad (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    Here it is

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't make any difference (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    All one needs is the historical knowledge to know that there is no such possible comparison between the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies.  

    [ Parent ]
    I do not understand your comment (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    the question is would a Dem say this. What is your response? Yes or no. And if not, should  a Dem defend  or attack the statement?

    Jusge the words, not the speaker.

    there is too much cultlike behavior as it is.

    [ Parent ]

    the statement, as quoted, I would not (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    expect a democrat to make. However, that's as snipped. So... context is everything, I suppose.

    [ Parent ]
    How is it snipped? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    Did I change the meaning of the statement?

    I do not understand your critique.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought this line was important-- (none / 0) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    "Because once you've reached a certain age, you won't sit there and listen to somebody tell you..."

    I thought that was what set the meaning of what followed.

    I would not expect a democrat to state the quoted text in this article without the abovementioned part.

    I wasn't critiquing the quote you made, only saying that a a democrat could make the statement with the additional line of quotation, but probably would not make only the last part.

    Am I making myself clear now? I hope so.

    [ Parent ]

    Are we naive or stupid asks (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    Kos rhetorically.  The answer is yes.  The bulk of the Obama suporters were 12 years old when BC left office.  All they were giggling about was bj's in the oval office, not all of the recovery efforts made in PA and other states.  And because they have so much in material wealth, my guess is they never had a really tough day in their life.  Obama on the other hand, is older and has had some rough spots in his life and so should know better.

    [ Parent ]
    Important to what end? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    Can you now read my post again as a hypothetical?

    [ Parent ]
    The quote is something (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    that a Dem might say only to to dispute it or qualify it.

    [ Parent ]
    You didn't click and READ the link did you? (none / 0) (#49)
    by MMW on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Psst Obama: Most Rural Towns Rebounding... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    Yes, alot were hit in the 1980s during the farm crises and a fundamental shift in the manufacturing sector, but most small towns are finding there footing again these days, in large part do to the policies put in place by the Clinton administration.

    This is especially true in small towns where the farm economy is still at the wheel. Farm prices are at an all time high right now. Things really couldn't be much better in a lot of parts of rural America.

    They are still (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    bitter and angry that their government is not responding to their needs!

    Oh wait - that's because they're angry at GEORGE BUSH.

    Never mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    "Things really couldn't be much better in a lot of parts of rural America."

    Do you have any data to back this up or are you just saying that?  

    I only ask because I know a lot of people in rural America who would beg to differ with you.  

    Rising commodity prices don't help much when you are leveraged up to the hilt and as deep in debt as the corn is high.

    [ Parent ]

    Most farmers are expecting record profits... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    ...this year. That's a fact.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    ...it is not a fact just because you say so.

    For one thing, it depends largely on the crop they choose to plant and how much acreage they devote to it.  

    For another thing, crops aren't even in the ground for "this year" and anything can happen in the coming months (floods, droughts, hail, the bottom dropping out of ethonol).

    [ Parent ]

    Here's a link... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    MPR

    [ Parent ]
    OK... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    ...I'll try to type slower for you.

    First, there is a BIG difference between expecting to make a profit and actually realizing one.  Especially in a risky business, cash intensive business as farming.  

    Second, one good year does not make up for all of the bads ones--especially when you are handing on to your land my your fingernails due to the crushing debt.  

    Third, there is no link.

    [ Parent ]

    I realize that... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST
    ...and I've been involved in ag in one form or another my whole life. I hear what you're saying. All I'm saying is that the last couple of years have been a heck of a lot better for farmers recently than they have been for a very long time, which is what this MPR link is talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Good... (none / 0) (#193)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    ...I'm happy to hear that they are going better. However, farming remains at best, a very risky undertaking.

    But it is an oversimplification to say that everything is rainbows and ponies out in rural America.  They are still plenty of problems that need to be addressed.

    I remain a little worried about the reliance upon one single crop (corn) and a dependence on federal subsidies--especially for the corporate farms.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    LINK

    [ Parent ]
    Not all rural Americans (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    Are farmers.

    In fact here in South Dakota, probably more people don't farm than do.  And I can tell you, $4.00/gal diesel is going to hurt out on the farm and in the grocery store.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a true dem (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    and I'd ask "what does the data suggest?"

    McCain
    How old were you in the 90's? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    I'm just wondering, because I was 18 in 1989, and Obama's spin on the 90's is 100% false. I was there and I remember how great it was when Bill was President.

    America still had problems then, of course, but the country under his leadership was on the right track. Peaceful, prosperous and secure, with a working Constitution and Justice Department.

    With a progressive Democratic Congress, Bill could have been a really, really great President instead of a very good one, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    I am older than you (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    by about 14 years, I reckon.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    So you agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    that Obama's lumping the Clinton years in, economically, with the Republican years before and after them is not based in reality?

    He does this constantly to support his BitterCling remarks, and he did it again last night.

    It's absolutely untrue and it makes me incredibly angry.

    [ Parent ]

    No, I don't agree with you (none / 0) (#107)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    And at this point I don't disagree, either. What I am saying is that the claim is subject to empirical verification.

    As I mentioned in a response to BTD, Obama's comments pertained to the economic life of small towns in the rust belt. Those towns have been economically depressed since the steel business went largely overseas. I suspect that the economic life in these pockets of America, to which Obama was referring, probably saw few differences during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

    What the former president appears to be doing is taking Obama's remarks out of context and trying to apply them on some kind of national level. That seems disingenuous to me.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    There is plenty of information out there (none / 0) (#120)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    including many links that are already on this site if you truly want empirical evidence.

    Are you just arguing for argument's sake?

    [ Parent ]

    Do these links (none / 0) (#145)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    specifically explore the standard of living issues pertinent to rust-belt communities whose economic lifeblood was shipped overseas with the steel industry?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    For Jeebus' sake. (none / 0) (#149)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    Why don't you look and see.

    Or use the Google instead of pretending to be objective.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not the one making the claim (none / 0) (#165)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    those who want to claim that Bill is correct and Barack is not should probably have some empirical basis for so suggesting. The burden of going forward with the evidence rests upon them.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    The evidence is there (none / 0) (#176)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    and it's been linked several times.

    You won't look.

    Somehow, I don't think the problem "rests with me."

    [ Parent ]

    I'm trying not to waste my time (none / 0) (#200)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    by examining evidence that is most likely not relevant.

    I am asking if the evidence pertains specifically to small rust-belt towns.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    I pursued these issues yesterday (none / 0) (#237)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    and found Larry Johnson at either HUFF Post or Taylor Marsh report on a huge number of programs and economic data in PA during the Clinton years.  I can't find the link now, but go dig around under Larry Johnson.  Incredible reporting.

    [ Parent ]
    Look up Krugman for (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    Some empirical data.


    [ Parent ]
    In case you're serious (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    Forbes - from 2004 (emphasis added). Data found in link.

    During the week of his funeral, several commentators declared Reagan the best president of the 20th century, even better than Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom Reagan himself admired. A recent Gallup Organization poll indicates that Americans rank John F. Kennedy slightly ahead of FDR, and both of them ahead of Reagan. Clinton supporters, meanwhile, note that he turned large federal deficits into surpluses and presided over a booming economy.

    It's the kind of argument that will never be settled, like who was a better ballplayer, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. But we took a look at the numbers, and for the money, among presidents since World War II, Clinton scores highest.



    [ Parent ]
    those of us who lived (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    through the 8 years of peace and prosperity that was the first Clinton presidency do not have to ask.

    [ Parent ]
    So you think there is some doubt? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    Interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that nationally (none / 0) (#63)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    most if the economic indicators were probably way way better during the Clinton years than during the Bush years.

    I think that in pockets of the country -- the rust belt, for example -- the differences, if any, have been small to negligible.

    That is just a guess, though. Like I said, I'd need to see the data to confirm whether my speculation has any basis in fact.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    From what I'm reading here... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    link (and I acknowledge that I am no econ expert), that unemployment in the "rust belt" had dropped dramatically by the mid-90s. Talking to a friend of mine in MI, it's back up.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    Back in August I realized that clinton's nearest Opponent would need to trash the Clinton legacy in order to win.

    I also concluded that doing so would result in a Kamikaze situation where 8 good years of economy would be erased from our collective party stump speech.

    Obama has Carter's legacy to run on...oops no he doesn't (and who would want it?)....well he's got LBJs great society...ah no not now, what about JFK?  

    Missile crisis and bay of Pigs, the start of Vietnam and McNamara's genius?

    He can't pretend to be Truman (nagasaki and Hiroshima--without batting an eyelid G*dD*mn AmeriKKKA!

    And he's dissed FDR's New Deal enough times that he can't invoke the greatest ever Dem. He's got, he's got GHW Bush and Reagan.  

    Obama's platform is suicidally brave or suicidally insane.

    i mentioned that, a day or two ago (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    (the site's down- the title is "Post-Parsing Fools"), and i also mentioned you. i said that i agree with you that hillary should have let others attack obama for his san francisco comments, but that i understand why she and bill are pissed at obama and his supporters, for consistently conflating the clinton years with the reagan and/or bush years.

    I saw your post (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    But todasy I am questioning the commitment to the Dem Party's well being, indeed, to Obama's chances of winning in November.

    The intent to destroy the Clinton wing of the Dem Party is clear now. Why there is such an intent is hard to say. There is NO ISSUE that explains this fervor.

    An insanity has overtaken them. To the point where they actually do not care anymore about the Dem Party - the goal not is destroy the Clintons. It is amazing to me.

    [ Parent ]

    It was hidden in talk of destroying the DLC (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    A group that i have no love for of course. But it was a code for getting at Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't care for the DLC, but (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    I have to agree that they are a moderating force against the SF left, of which I belong.  I have to accept the Republican Light to avoid a "moderate" McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    But there is (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    too much DLC support and acceptance of such support with the Obama campaign.  That dog won't hunt.  

    [ Parent ]
    it's been obvious, for months (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    there is a fanatacism and cultish quality to some of his supporters. many of his online supporters. many of his prominent online supporters. and because there are not great substantive differences between clinton and obama, they have to justify their fanatacism and cultishness, lest they face the reality that they are fanatics and cultish. so, they have to demonize the clintons. they have to invent things and distort things and post-parse and somehow rationalize to themselves that the messiah is necessary to save the world from the satans.

    [ Parent ]
    It is personal jealousy (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    No prominent Democrat has had 1/10th the luster of Bill Clinton. Durbin, Kerry, Daschle, Leahy---they all think they are better than that white trash Bill Clinton. Nothing is more important to them than validating their egos.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    both parties are being torn apart because it is popular with the people.  I imagine it is polling well. 'People' have been defined as angry with govt and wanting to get rid of the status quo and wanting someone who is the symbol of anger at both parties in power.  You can't get to postpartisanship without destroying both parties and getting rid of the party control of govt.  Parties are just special interests groups that must be gotten out of govt.  ?????

    [ Parent ]
    the very smart Craig Crawford (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    said months ago that Clinton Derangement Syndrome was a mental illness.


    [ Parent ]
    Read And Enjoyed That Post n/t (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They have deployed a brilliant strategy (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    to distance themselves from the Clintons.  How else can they possibly lose in the grand tradition of Mondale, Gore and Kerry without alienating one of the fiercest, fighting dem families of our time?  If Obama had not attacked both Clintons early and often, no one would know his name right now.

    Oh, BTD, you sneaky minx!

    wait... (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    but obama's new and different and hope and change and clean and shiny and stuff. are you implying that he's a politician and that he fights dirty? gasp!

    [ Parent ]
    St. Obama fights dirty (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    while his supporters whine about Hillary not defending him last night.
    Strange.
    But the side effects of Koolaid are widely known.


    [ Parent ]
    Was Hillary supposed to defend him (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    after he snarked about her 1992 "baking cookies" remark?  "Hey, I'm not condescending, what about her, she rejected the traditional feminine role of presidential spouses 16 years ago, how's THAT for condescending?  She was insulting Nancy Reagan!"

    [ Parent ]
    Nancy Reagan baked cookies? (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    First I heard of it. What I remember is a red dress, odd lipstick, astrology and china patterns.

    I thought that it was a response to Mrs. Quayle.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Nancy had her servants (5.00 / 2) (#275)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    bake the cookies; she just served them.

    Yes, I do remember Marilyn Quayle's "women do not wish to be liberated from their essential natures as wives and mothers" speech at the '92 Gooper convention. I'm not sure whether HRC was responding to her in particular or just an inane question from the press.

    [ Parent ]

    Snippet of a snippet? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    I don't know how we can answer this question without knowing the context of the original (and full) quote.

    Would you dispute this claim? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    it's fairly simple.

    I think most Democrats would feel inclined to dispute the concept that Clinton was a continuation of Reagan.

    Most republicans would.

    A Naderite might go with the idea that Clinton was a continuation of Reagan.

    [ Parent ]

    I reject the idea that (none / 0) (#153)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:43:57 PM EST
    Clinton was a continuation of Reagan. I also object to bundling the Clinton and Bush years which Obama's campaign has been prone to doing.

    I was asking a question, because I clicked on the link in the original post and was taken to a place I try not to visit. From there I read the snipped quote.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    [ Parent ]

    That is an ignorant comment to put it mildly (none / 0) (#173)
    by BigB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Clinton is a continuation of Reagan! Wow! have you compared the records of Reagan and Clinton?

    Deficit and national debt went up during Reagan years. Deficit and national debt went down during Clinton years.  

    Clinton appointed Ruth bader Ginsburg and Stepehen Breyer to the supreme court. Reagan gave us William Rhenquist and Antonin Scalia.

    The Clinton administration was great for civil rights, had the most diverse cabinet, and was pro-choice.

    This is the kind of ignorant comment by Obama supporters that makes me wonder if you all have any loyalty beyond your support for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I said I REJECT (none / 0) (#180)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    the idea that Clinton is/was a continuation of Reagan. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

    Are you trying to fight with me?

    BTW, I am a Hillary supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    You should re-read what I wrote (none / 0) (#244)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:29:33 PM EST
    before insulting me.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (3.66 / 3) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    I am not asking you for a reaction to the "context" - Are you incapable of reacting to the words as they stand?

    Do you need to know who said them in order to be able to tell me your reaction? Why pray tell.

    [ Parent ]

    I have taken out the context (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    It is now a hypothetical.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#102)
    by sumac on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    without context we don't know if this is a speaker quoting someone else, being sarcastic or mocking, an so forth.

    The words as provided here... no, I don't think a Dem would say them.

    [ Parent ]

    Progressive bloggers at TNR's Plank read (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's response to this and they said, "You almost get the sense that if Obama would just show Bill the proper respect, he'd lean on his wife to get out of the race."  Tsk.  Tsk.  Tsk.  Progressive frat boyz humor at its finest.  Of course his commenters agree.

    Oh Lord. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    Save me from the utter stupidity.

    [ Parent ]
    I imagine (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST