Would A Dem Say This?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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

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


    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.

    Don't know if a Democrat would say it (5.00 / 11) (#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
    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.  

    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
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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...;-)

    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).


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


    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?"

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?


    Bingo. (5.00 / 8) (#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
    Thanks. :-) (none / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    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....



    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.

    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?


    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).  


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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).


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

    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.


    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.

    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.


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


    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?"

    How old were you in the 90's? (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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."


    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.


    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.

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

    In case you're serious (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    those of us who lived (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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

    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.


    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.

    BTD (5.00 / 7) (#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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.  ?????

    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.

    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
    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!

    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.
    But the side effects of Koolaid are widely known.

    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!"

    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.


    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.


    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 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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 / 2) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    Save me from the utter stupidity.

    I imagine (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    none of those boys over there have ever been in a serious, long term relationship.  With a real woman.

    To posit that WJC just needs an ego stroke to turn his back on HRC is absolutely disgusting.  It is something a spoiled and needy child might think.


    KOS is actually (none / 0) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    married with children, as is Josh.

    However, it doesn't mean they have any respect for women.

    (And I think it's a little dangerous that they're constantly posting pics of their kids.  Do they not know that there are crazies on the net who might be tempted to do some harm to them?  Keeping them anonymous is best.)


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    I am really shocked.  And saddened for whoever has to listen to this crap when he gets home.

    But, "those boys" can include many others.

    Wow.  Really?  That poor woman.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    I was thinking of the ones who are consistently mentioned here.

    Aravosis is gay, but seems pretty close to his sister...although he hasn't shown any respect for gay Americans by justifying McClurkin.

    Who else...Armstrong at MyDD is a Hillary Supporter.  The others over there are the ones who warned/almost banned me for saying that the racist "boy" comment was matched by the drip.drip.drip long-term misogyny.

    I don't know any of the others at all.  Olbermann isn't known for his high-minded nature toward women in general...


    Well This Dem Was Much Better Off Financially (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:54:00 PM EST
    when Clinton was president even though I don't live in a small town in PA. My retirement account is growing small as I continue to grow older under Bush.

    This Dem, too (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by zyx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    and I don't think Obama is "ready on Day One" to help this Dem recover from the stagnation my family has experienced for these eight years that were so NOT LIKE the previous eight.

    I was pretty well off in the 1990s (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    and I got more well off during the Bush years, as the legal profession got to represent more and more private equity funds doing stoopid deals for the sake of generating more management fees that could be taxed at capital gains rates.

    I would still have been perfectly happy during the last eight years to time travel back to the Clinton Administration, Monicagate and all, despite the fact that I got hit with the Clinton 39% marginal tax rate for high earners. Not all high income earners vote strictly on the basis of their own personal aversion to paying their fair share of taxes.


    Now taking second dip under GW (none / 0) (#225)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    My 401k taking second dip in 7 years. It florished in the 90s. I did not even mind paying higher taxes because it meant I was making lots of money and the deficit was getting paid down. Now, I am in better shape than a lot, but nothing close to 1999. I loved those years under Clinton.

    My retirement funds (none / 0) (#281)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    have been up and down over the last seven and a half years like a yo-yo -- I'm not even sure I've broken even, and seven years during your mid-forties to mid-fifties when you're talking about the value of retirement money is a very very important time.

    Can you imagine if Bush had privatized Social Security, so that lower income seniors could enjoy similar stagnation or devaluation of their retirement money?


    The only way to win against the Clinton years (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    in the Democratic party is to tilt to the left of BC and lose PA or to the right and lose CA. I'm a liberal from SF, but I recognize that my views are way far into the left from mainstream Americans.

    I'm a leftist liberal (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by zyx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    but I realize that the country as a whole is not where I am.  I would prefer for a centrist government to prevail than for us to lurch back and forth--and really, we don't even do that.  We lurch right and center, and the right PR machine chatters about the evils of the left.  We just need to shore up the center in a united and sensible way.  I think Bill Clinton worked at doing that, and while I didn't always agree with his actions, I respected his general methodology and his hard, smart work.

    Really, if you want support (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    of Bill Clinton's point, especially as it applies to the midwest, take a look at this link.

    Bill Clinton's point is not (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    even a question of being a Dem.

    It's a question of being reality-based.

    Which, in my view, has always been the fundamental problem of the Obama wing of the party.


    A smart Democrat (5.00 / 12) (#67)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    would be able to speak about the effect of Bush on the lives of the people of Pennsylvania without being afraid that in doing so, he might have to acknowledge the good the last Democratic president did.

    By continuing to lump Bill Clinton's presidency in with that of Bush, Obama is running away from the positives he ought to be embracing - positives that could actually help get a Democrat elected.

    But he's more worried that praising the Clinton years would be seen as boosting the fortunes of his Democratic opponent, and once again shows the short-sightedness of his campaign.  For sure, if he is the candidate, Obama's refusal to embrace the policies of the Clinton years that most definitely benefited a lot of people is going to boomerang back at him from the McCain campaign, and it will stick.

    We need the smart Democrat, not the selfish one.

    This has been evident for a long time. (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by mm on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    But he's more worried that praising the Clinton years would be seen as boosting the fortunes of his Democratic opponent, and once again shows the short-sightedness of his campaign.

    Go back and look at some of the earlier debates.  Any time Senator Clinton would reference any success during the Clinton years, Obama would turn away or look up at the ceiling like he was annoyed.  It almost appears like he simply can't stand to hear anything positive about the most competent President in my lifetime.  I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.


    I was against the Clintons before I was for them (none / 0) (#152)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    I've said all along that if Obama ever sews up the nomination he will immediately do a 180 and start singing the praises of the Clinton years and all the good a Dem president can do for America. Same for the blogosphere.

    Unfortunately, in every debate, and interview going forward, Obama will have to explain away all the self-serving  Clinton hate he is spewing now.

    They don't make flip-flops big enough for Obama's feet.


    Whoever is doling out the 1 ratings (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    seems to be engaging in a no-no.

    It is proseandpromise (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    I do not care about ratings. But he can comment no further today.

    I see... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    got my first one right there. Interesting...

    I don't think one would and I don't think one did (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    I think it is clear that the Clinton years are the best we have had in the last 30-40 years.  There are many things Clinton did that I don't agree with but I don't question that.  (I do think many poor people are doing worse now because of the welfare policies he enacted, but that is a different issue and certainly the repubs are still responsible for more of the pain that working people are now experiencing.)

    That said it seems a bit of a straw man.  I thought Kos was saying that you would have to be stupid to think that or to think that Obama is saying that.  Where has he said it?  I may have missed it to be sure and perhaps I am being to generous to Kos.

    Obama said it on Billionaire Row (none / 0) (#124)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    along with his other despicable comments.

    In fact, Obama only praises the (none / 0) (#135)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    Bush and Reagan years, so you are sort of right.

    Sorry for the tl;dr: (none / 0) (#216)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    Welfare reform was something Bill Clinton caved on, not legislation that he promoted himself. I interned during college and then worked with low income parents and children in the 90's while welfare reform fight was going on. That train was coming straight at us from Gingrich via the Contract with America, and Bill Clinton first fought it, then caved while listening to the advice of Dick Morris instead of Hillary (which made me furious with him.)

    But he did manage to muscle some good policy to put in with the crap--job training programs, increased Pell grants and college funding, and much-needed day care money for low-income parents, as well easing the most stringent regulations which caused some men to abandon their families so they wouldn't be denied aid.

    TANF was not that bad as written, but the Republicans procedurally stuck all the money into lump-sum community block grants to the states, instead of to discrete programs as before. That way, they could vote against giving poor children food and shelter while still looking noble--"Let the states decide how to spend that money!" Yeah, thanks for letting us decide how to spend half the money we used to get.


    I don't understand... (none / 0) (#253)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:37:27 PM EST

    Are you saying Jimmy Carter, one-term president, was twice the president of Bill Clinton?

    If so, can you back that up with anything?


    It's the old wine track vs. beer track divide (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    that has plagued this party since the demise of the FDR/Truman coalition.

    What it is, is simple elitism:

    The "creative class" types would rather lose than be directly accountable to the great unwashed masses, who are supposed to blindly vote for the all-knowing upper-crust Brahmin and profit indirectly from noblesse oblige.

    Populism is scary to these types, because their tax bracket essentially makes them Republicans.

    Maybe noblesse oblige is why O likes Poppy? (none / 0) (#132)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    H.W. Bush is the ultimate poster boy for the noblesse oblige approach to politics, and he learned of his duty at the knee of his Connecticut daddy Senator Prescott Bush.  Maybe that is why Obama and some in the creative class are so smitten.

    About "noblesse oblige"... (none / 0) (#260)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    it has nothing to do with the Bush economics, or Reaganomics. It has to do with obligation. The meaning of noblesse oblige is "Those who have, have an obligation to those who have not".

    This means that those who have have an obligation to HELP people who do not have their advantages. It it much closer to the traditional Democratic platform than Obama ever will be. And miles away from the Republican platforms of any era.

    No Bush ever did anything for the poor except sneer at them for being poor. Obama is very close to taking that road. And that attitude is the antithesis of noblesse oblige.


    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    was good enough for many of them in 2006 when he was out there campaigning and raising money for Democrats.  I didn't see any of them complaining about Bill or  his presidency then.  I attended one of those events in St. Louis where he gave a big hand to Claire McCaskill.  

    Yes, And Claire Graciously Thank Him For That (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    effort by announcing on Meet The Press that she wouldn't want him in the same room as her daughter.

    Senator McCaskill (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    is afraid to let her daughter in a room with Bill Clinton, but she's perfectly happy to let her supporters in a room with Bill Clinton.  Nice.

    I guess she's admitting she's a hypocrite, not to mention a bad chaperone.


    now there is someone (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    of whom it is fair to ask "is this a real democrat"

    She is probably (none / 0) (#175)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:04 PM EST
    afraid her daughter will scream in Bill's face " Leave Obama alooooooonnnnnnnne."

    This Was Back on 04. n/t (none / 0) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    That was awful (none / 0) (#181)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    I still can't believe she said that.

    No Dem should say that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    if they want the party to win the whitehouse.  It does not make any sense. As my mother would say about this type of senselessness, "your sense is only up to the tip of a part of your mail anatomy." (approximate translation from my mother's native language)

    But what I would really like to understand is:  Why should there be SUCH HATRED for the Clintons?  Can someone please list their "sins" that warrant this hatred?  And please exclude Lewinsky because that had nothing to do with the policies during the 8 years of the adm. and Hillary certainly was not involved.

    I am not being facetious because I think I have read all published FACTS about the Clintons and I really do not understand why the accomplishments of his administration should be denied by this group that hates Hillary so much.

    Bill Clinton's years (none / 0) (#140)
    by magster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    were the enlightenment compared to the last eight years, but NAFTA and welfare reform occurred under Clinton.  When we look at NAFTA and the beginning of outsourcemania, then the truth hurts. Yes, a Democrat can say that.

    Obama can't even say (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    That they were the enlightenment compared to the last 8 years.

    He groups them together.


    Was welfare reform bad? (none / 0) (#215)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    Did Bill Clinton by his lonely self, institute Nafta?  But those do not explain the hatred for Hillary.

    Balanced budget bad?  Northern Ireland peace accord bad? Halting the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia bad?  Reduction of the national debt?  Nafta alone does not justify the hate. Try again.  


    That's wrong (none / 0) (#242)
    by badger on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    I toured an empty outsourced TV manufacturing plant in IL in 1979 looking at surplus equipment; the Fortune 500 company I worked for in the mid 70s had moved all of its production to Mexico by 1988. Both of those are well before either NAFTA or Clinton, and NAFTA has nothing to do with China and other third-world countries that most jobs are being exported to.

    The easiest trend to look at is real non-supervisory wages - what the average workingperson takes home every week. Real wages peaked under Nixon and have steadily declined under every President since. They declined more slowly under Clinton, Employment was higher under Clinton, and job growth actually existed.

    You can argue that Clinton failed to reverse the negative trends that have plagued the economy for years - that's true. You can argue that those trends continued in the same direction under Clinton - that's true, although at a slower rate.

    The lesson to take away, though, is that no single President, even over two terms and especially faced with a hostile GOP and spineless Dems, is going to fix the US economy overnight. Obama has neither the experience, nor the ideas, not the advisors to accomplish much of anything economically IMO.

    But if welfare reform is major issue for you, please point me to where Obama says he's going to repeal it. Otherwise, I don't think there's much validity in criticizing Clinton over something Obama doesn't even care about.


    According to my yellow dog mom, (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Teresa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    Obama had better embrace the Clinton Presidency if he gets the nomination and wants her vote. No other issue about Obama makes her angrier than his refusal to see the good in the last Democratic Presidency we've had. I tend to agree with her.

    pledge (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimbo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:10:35 PM EST
    Everyone take the pledge, let Howard Dean know:

    We can put a stop to the FL - MI problem. Take the pledge:

    "If MI and FL are not brought into the national picture immediately and their votes counted, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will not vote for president in November.  If MI and FL are returned to the national picture immediately and their votes counted, then I will vote for the Democratic nominee whomever it is".

    If enough of us take the pledge then Dean has few choices. If he makes the wrong choice then Obama will have no chance to be President. Period. The only chance for Obama and choice for Dean is to bring FL and MI into the equation, now.

    I had a conversation with a poli-sci (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    professor today---Obama supporter.
    Three points from him:
    1) Obama was right about racists in PA.
    When pressed he admitted that one should actually look at the evidence and not blindly accept such a strong assertion.

    2) Ayers might have been right to use violence.
    By a funny coincidence, he is giving a lecture on Ayers today, but he didn't know of Obama's connection.

    3) Hillary is a warmonger.

    He's welcome to teach.. he's a smart (none / 0) (#184)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    guy. I don't think college professor are savvier about politics than the average person... unless they are mathematicians, of course.

    My daughter (none / 0) (#188)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    My daughter has a right wing professor teaching a world history/econ class and he comes out with some amazing statements.  We just giggle together over his pronouncements.

    Of course. Poli sci depts were targeted (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    by conservatives long ago, and that helped to usher in the conservative revolution in '80.  Darn, how I wish I still could find an excellent article about this, but even that probably was a decade ago.

    Liberal friends of mine in poli sci depts have had some tough times -- feminists even more so, as you can imagine.

    But remember:  If our kids only get teachers with whom they agree, how are the kids ever going to learn to question authority?  That was a key lesson for us to learn in those excessive '60s, in part because we had teachers we questioned constantly.

    And as a teacher, may I say thank heavens for students who have questions -- if they have learned and/or are learning to evidence and argue   well.  Those papers get A's, no matter whether or not I disagree with their conclusions.    It's about learning how to process information, not about producing clones.


    OK, never been over there (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    so I looked at the comments.  Not one single Clinton supporter.

    Here's a good one..... Bill's more upset that people feel able to finally say, "you know what, I lived through the Clinton years and I didn't benefit at all", because there are in fact more of us who can say that than there are the opposite..blah, blah..
    but really, nobody is making the allegations Bill is all upset about..blah, blah..Obama is right, and Clinton can't face it...blah, blah..he's damn lucky in a way that he was succeeded by Bush to make him look good by comparison.

    Summary: they can't stand the Clinton's and it's not pretty.

    awful isn't it? I was a trusted user non-stop (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Teresa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:20:36 PM EST
    for almost four years and I quit in mid-February. It's just not worth it. None of their analysis means anything to me anymore and I regret sending money to some of the causes they asked for.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    I can't believe now how much time I used to spend there.

    And I can never get those hours back....


    Ah, but that's when I became an admirer (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    of yours, litmom.  So maybe at least some of those minutes were well-spent, as I learned a lot from you there, too.  And I suspect that I was not alone. :-)

    You are not alone. When litigatormom (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Teresa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    decided to support Hillary, I knew I'd made the right choice.

    {{blushes}} (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    Thank you.

    You have to hate the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    for Obama to win.
    Bill's policies were, for the most part, good.
    His personal life, not so much, but not Hillary's fault.
    Therefore, you gotta be irrational.
    You gotta hate.

    See this is the problem with this post (none / 0) (#118)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    People seem to think Obama actually said this, which as far as I know he did not.  You can support Obama without hating Bill Clinton (BTD does, as do I).  You can even think Hillary is not Bill (as she insists when NAFTA comes up for example)

    Obama bashes Bill Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    in every way.  When he lists the great presidents of the last 20 years, he skips Clinton.  He called the man a racist.  He's called Clinton's wife "desperate" and a "liar."

    In what way has Obama every respected Bill Clinton, his legacy or his works (in this campaign, I mean, because he sure as heck did back when WJC was helping Obama raise money for his senate political career)


    To be fair, Obama spent those years (none / 0) (#217)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    in neighborhoods of Chicago hard hit by welfare reform, I bet, as such neighborhoods were in my city.  I did so dislike it when Clinton jumped on that welfare-reform bandwagon that began in my state, as I already had seen its devastating effects, and especially on women and children.

    Now, if Obama would explain that is his basis for attacking the Clinton presidency, I might listen.

    But Obama does not do so -- he just attacks everything about the Clinton presidency, not based on any principles but because it is politically necessary for Obama to do so, simply because to concede that those were good years for Dems and for the country would be good for another Clinton running now, too. . . .


    It's the C-word (none / 0) (#290)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:20:02 PM EST
    As in "can't", as in "Bill can't stay home if I'm the nominee--he has to campaign for me because he's a Democrat."

    In other words, Obama is placing one whale of a bet, that he can use Bill bashing as a way to be conspicuously different and still get Bill on his side in the general election.

    Frankly, I expect it will work, assuming Obama gets the nomination.  Bill will realize that he doesn't want McCain to have his finger on those Supreme Court nominations, and he also doesn't want to look like a sore loser, so he'll put on a happy face and campaign.

    That's what real Democrats do, and they don't have to think about it, as some other spouse in the mix has said.


    Obama constantly talks about (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    how the middle income voters have gotten the shaft for the past twenty years -- forgetting that twelve of those years were during the Clinton Administration, and that Clinton left office with a 60+% approval rating.  If asked in 2000 "are you better off now than you were in 1992," the overwhelming majority of voters would have said yes.

    and what about the budget . . . . (none / 0) (#224)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    methinks the budget was better off in 2000 than it was in '92 also.

    why do you think Bill is making the comment? (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    Obama has repeatedly said that Clinton and Bush are responsible for the "letting middle America slip through the cracks".  But that Bush 1 and Reagan had it right.

    Clinton is asking people to get the damn facts, that anyone who really believes that the last eight years parallel Clinton's eight years is delusional.  I agree.


    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    I've been a yellow-dog Democrat for 36 years.  During that time, if one allows for corrections based on drifts/shifts in the national consciousness, the Party has always been relatively consistent in its views and position.  

    Bill Clinton is a hero to me, and Reagan is Satan.  That's not negotiable.  If the Party has decided to reverse direction on that, then it's going to have to do without me.

    A Dem (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Fredster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    shouldn't say it, but lately, who knows?

    BTW, I won't go to that place to read the entire thing either.

    I agree with some of the other posters; to deny Hillary a chance, they have to deny Bill and his presidency, but by doing so they deny the last 2 term Democrat we've had.

    No, it makes sense though. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    With out the crossover Republican support, Obama has gotten, he wouldn't be enjoying the lead he has now. In fact, he might even be down in the numbers. We can't argue that Obama doesn't know who his friends are though.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Does anyone seriously believe (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    that Republicans are going to vote for Obama in large numbers in the fall?  How many pro-choice, anti-Neanderthal Supreme Court Justice Republicans are there? There may be a lot of anti-war Republicans out there, but are they really going to vote for Obama over Clinton because he opposed the war before she did?  Weren't most of them in favor of the war for longer, and therefore care more about who will get us out of Iraq faster and safer, instead of who voted for what?

    Obama's crossover appeal (none / 0) (#214)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    is a self-reported phenomenon.  He can't be the "unifier" without saying such.  But just as with Bush, saying you can unify is different than being able to accomplish the feat.

    Obama is a two-faced ass who also happens to be a genius in terms of rhetorical manipulation.  He is "workin harder for you...and you...and you over there"  "no one has done more for you...and you...and hey, you over there too."  But the only problem is this:  Being duplicitous is fine...right up to the pt someone calls you on it.  He's for gun control in SF and NY, he's anti-gun control in Idaho and CO etc.  He's pro-gay rights in SF, so long as he doesn't have to be seen with a pro-gay activist, but is gay rights neutral in Kansas etc.  He's anti-Iraq in blue states, "common sense" towards Iraq in Red States.  He's pro-choice when convenient, understands the "moral dilemna" in states where pro-choice isn't convenient.  He threw his pastor under the bus in a denouncement at Huffpo; two days later he said he could not disown his pastor; last night he said he had disowned his pastor.  That duplicity, the coat for all seasons, the change with the wind mentality will kill him with the gop and undecided voter.  He can't unify dems behind him because of the same reasons, ie the crossover bull is a figment of imagination.  John McCain will pull the gop moderates and pull a large chunk of indies vs Clinton or Obama...but Obama will not win a single Red state whereas Clinton can win states like Arkansas and Tennessee.  Clinton can win the working class states of MI, OH, PA v McCain...Obama can't.  HIllary can win FL, Obama can't.  And it comes down to trust.  The working class is for Hillary precisely because of the Clinton years in the 90's when things we're getting better....Obama is still doing well because the rhetoric still sounds good...everyone has hope for a brighter future, everyone wants change in the govt, to see a new approach in govt...but the closer Nov gets and the more Obama gets exposed as a duplicitous politician the less people are going to trust him, the more hollow Hope and Change becomes.


    The Obamans believe it (none / 0) (#222)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    Revisionist History (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:24:24 PM EST
    There is a gap between the people who were politically aware during the Clinton presidency and those who were not.  The folks in the latter category appear to have learned the history of that period from textbooks funded by Richard M. Scaife.  Did Clinton do everything I wanted?  No.  But he was far more favorable to my values in foreign policy, the economy, and civil rights than Reagan or either Bush.  

    It is becoming clear that there is an internecine war for hegemony in the Democratic Party and the Presidency seems to have taken a back seat to scoring a decisive victory in the party war.  Trying to disassociate oneself from 8 years of relative peace and prosperity worked well for Gore in 2000.  Is this election cycle the death knell of the Democratic Party?

    The funny thing (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    is that they're neutering Bill so Bill can't campaign for their candidates.

    In other words, they're cutting off his you-know-whats and their own at the same time.

    And then when Bill does nothing (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    They will blame him for doing nothing.

    Kos and his gate crashers are a destructive force in the party.


    Now what? (none / 0) (#218)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    Should I shut up and follow your lead off a cliff?

    Worked out great for Al Gore (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    didn't it?

    I sent this in to the SFChronicle LTE (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    and they published it:
    Senator Obama made some troubling remarks, some true according to his supporters, but one glaringly untrue according to the records.   He said that "people fell through the cracks during the Clinton and Bush years."  Discarding Clinton's economic successes during the 1990's is a common ploy for Senator Obama and every bit as damaging as his "clinging and bitter remarks."  Another candidate, Al Gore, had the same problem.  Why is it so hard to give a former Democratic president credit for turning around the country for the damaging policies of the Reagan/Bush years?

    A lot of different reasons (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    But liberalism has always fetishized failure (we're martyrs!) and distrusted success.

    It's one of the driving forces behind the liberal psyche, and it's why a conservative can sit there and say conservative failures are great achievements and liberal great achievements are failures.

    And this psyche is why a limitted number of people want to liberals.


    Tom Watson Discusses The GOS (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    The Small Tent Democrats by Tom Watson

    There's another bad sign as well. Among the online progressive groundswell for Obama there seems to be a growing clamor for sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat. The dominant theme seems to be some version of "Obama's Democratic opponents can longer be called Democrats - because they oppose Obama." Clinton, in particular, comes in for this party-scrubbing routine. Here's Markos Moulitsas, capo di tutti capi of all things blogworthy on the left, after last night's dilly in Philly:

    In one of the threads last night, commenter theran made a good observation: At some point the concept of "Republicans will do X" has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more. Yup.

    h/t Taylor Marsh

    I'd like to tell Kos that his posters that (none / 0) (#133)
    by Teresa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    told me people on social security are users and have taken far more than they've given to this country are not Democrats. Not the kind of Democrat I want to be. I had a long argument once with them over there about this issue and I am shocked at how many of them feel this way.

    Oxy, BTD blogged on that comment earlier today... (none / 0) (#166)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    and there are comments on TL that state if you don't support Obama should he be the nominee, you're not a true Democrat.

    I don't even know what that means.

    I ran into that belief last weekend at the 40th LD here in WA state. But I heard a lot of things at the caucuses I was stunned to hear, including being called beeyotch for standing there in my Hillary shirt and cap.

    But would a Democrat say what BTD quotes? Sure. Democrats say all kinds of stuff, some of it smart, some of it stupid, some of it insightful, some of it totally nutbar, some of it irrelevant.

    I'm willing to listen to astute criticism and good ideas regardless where they came from. Then again, I like to think I keep an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out.*

    (*Not mine---I got it from CSICOP.)


    The Clinton and Bush (5.00 / 8) (#119)
    by Left of center on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    years are identical only if you're an out of touch millionaire. For the rest of us it's like the difference between night and day.

    Not even then (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    because the stock market performed phenomenally during Bill's years (and you can't fault Bush for the crappy economy now, without giving Bill some credit for the good years.)

    Sure you can fault Clinton! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    D*mn him for making the economy so good so that when Bush tanked it, it looked even worse than it would have otherwise.

    There is a certain clarity (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Nadai on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    being reached in the Clinton blogworld, too, largely as a result of posts like that.  I suspect the Obama blogworld won't care too much for the consequences of that clarity.

    Gotta agree here. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    It appears Obama is ready to through away support from long term Dems in order to gain short term advantage from cross over Republicans. This is going to be painful.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Worst of it is that (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    it was clear from the start of his campaign, and no one would see it, or did not care. It is not about the party with them, or even the good of the country, or our soldiers in Iraq.  It is all about Obama.

    I have to agree with that (none / 0) (#203)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    I think BTD and Jeralyn are a little late to the game on this.

    A lot of us saw this coming a year ago.

    I'm not sure I ever thought Obama himself would embrace the rhetoric that forces me to choose between the Clinton Legacy and the future of the party, so maybe that's a new development.

    But anyone who's been around the gate crashers long enough knows full well that a destruction of the Clinton legacy was in the works.  Indeed simply because it would have been foolish to think the movement would make a logical distinction between the Clintons and the DLC.

    To be more specific, when Kos threatened to take down the DLC, make them "radioactive" (something he backed off because he knew he overstepped at the time), if you were telling yourself Kos at that time that didn't mean the Clintons too, I think you were misunderstanding the real trajectory of the movement.

    What is happening now on blogs is not surprising to most of us at all.

    I'm going to post this here as a counter-argument to what I'm saying:


    But again if you couldn't see that that was a 457 KB oasis of sanity in a million terabytes of rage then I think you were missing the point for the sake wanting to belong to the movement.


    its looking like (none / 0) (#211)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    he wont get much of either.

    You can only say that (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    to 18-20 year olds whose parents were Republicans.  They would only remember Monica and forget the good.

    I didn't love all of Clinton's policies, but occasionally, he'd do something where average Americans really benefited.  Bush has done absolutely nothing that has benefited average Americans without giving something even better to the upper class.

    They are destroying the Democratic brand (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    ...and they don't care.

    No, a Dem sould not say it (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    People who say it should start their own party and see how well they do without Dem and Clinton support.

    I can only imagine the Clinton's private conversations about all of the days and weeks of their lives they have wasted campaigning for people who would say this - Barack Obama, for one.

    I'm not a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    but Bill's the only Democrat I've never voted for... I was only eighteen in 92' but I was old enough to see him for what he was back then.  

    Perot or Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    So was it Perot or Bush?

    And Perot again in 1996?

    I'm not a Democrat either but Bill is the only Dem I voted FOR for president. I usually end up voting AGAINST the Republican.


    Mickey Mouse write in (none / 0) (#230)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    What did you perceive (none / 0) (#197)
    by zyx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    him to be "back then"?

    I have no idea what you mean.


    That he would do (none / 0) (#235)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    anything to win.

    Ah, the non-sentient is heard from at last. (none / 0) (#223)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:19:24 PM EST
    He Doesn't Have a Choice... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    He's campaigning against Bill.

    What else can he do and win?

    Bill is that good... if you can't get his support you have to do what Obama is doing.

    It's a contest of character and the polls indicate Hillary is loosing that contest and so is Bill.

    I'm sorry about your view of the damage to the party but the game is a full contact sport.

    Obama doesn't use most of the Clinton era the way the Repugs will... and that's a fact.

    OK... he mentioned the "cookies" meme.

    From the first day of the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    He was talking about the Lincoln Bedroom.

    He attacks Bill like a Republican.


    Taking Money from Special Interests... (none / 0) (#227)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    That's one of Obama's basic campiagn talking points.

    I can't believe he didn't mention Columbia and the CAFTA issues (or rather why the moderators didn't think it was worth debating) especially with a Rust Belt state pending a vote.

    I guess the "commie link terrorist" issue is more pressing.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#247)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    And that's how Nader attacked Gore.

    Gore accepted donations from the pharmaceutical lobby and Nader argued that you can't fix health care if you take money from the pharmaceutical lobby.

    I disagreed with Nader when he said that about Gore.

    I disagree with Obama when he says it about Clinton.

    And it's only exacerbated by the fact that Obama still utilized the lobbyist networks soliciting them for donations, but just saying, "Don't make the check out in your name, have your wife or co-worker write the check."


    I disagree (none / 0) (#209)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:11:31 PM EST
    Obama just isn't a good enough politician to finesse it.

    He should be able to at least give voice to traditional Democratic principles and contrast them with Republican ones at the same time. Obama just doesn't have the talent.


    If he cannot build upon the strengths (none / 0) (#226)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    of the Clinton Presidency, but then say how he would do things differently (welfare reform, NAFTA, energy policy, etc.) to be even MORE Democratic, then that is his fault and his weakness as a politician.

    welcome to the party Big Tent (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    a few months ago I realized that insanity has gripped the Democratic party like it did before with Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis. Not only will they nominate someone who is in my opinion not prepared to run this country (hell I read that Beinert was impressed by the way Obama ran his campaign and wishes he runs the country the same way...shades of GWB) but in the process they spew out enough vitriol to turn off the other half of the democratic party. The impression they have is that the Hillary dems are the true dems and will vote for a dem president come what may, maybe they will and maybe not but they will sure be reluctant to support such a divisive candidate.
    And while Markos and Josh Marshall beat the unity schtick with the band leader Huffington and Sullivan what they forget is that unity begins at home. It is not enough for them to trash a good democrat as a corrupt, opportunistic racist freak but then they have to rewrite history and blame every woe of the 90s on Bill Clinton. Never mind the years of growth and prosperity when America was the beacon of the free world with a strong economy and a stronger dollar, Clinton is to blame for everything else (including the loss of the house, never mind the house corruption which was its own downfall). Revisionism on this scale can only divide and lead to the downfall of a party.

    That's what I was trying to tell my spouse... (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    ...who is an Obama supporter. I warned him that if Bill Clinton can be trashed and obliterated this way, then George W. Bush can be reconstituted as a great president one day. Mark my words. And that is certainly what the Republicans intend. Reagan was not the beloved "great president" that many young people think he was. He was divisive and controversial. He fired the air traffic controllers for goddsake. And the hatchet job that is done to the Clintons in favor of Obama today will be turned on Obama next even if he is elected president. Sometimes you do have to stand up for principle, even if it doesn't advantage your chosen candidate and even if the other guy (or woman) isn't perfect.

    how did those four names (none / 0) (#239)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    plus beinart and Schultz come to define the Democrats?



    Hey good new: 10 million people (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    watched the debate last night.

    If my candidate does not win (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    (Obama) then i will gladly vote for Hillary.  I am glad Hillary is keeping the pressure on.  Obama did not handle the questions well last night and he will get eaten alive if he performs that way against McCain.  The media might be giving him a break against Hillary but the right outlets will not be so kind come the GE race.

    I don't get the Obama supporters that are hell bent on bashing Hillary, their platforms are not all that different and their priorities are almost identical so why the bs?

    Worried about (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    my Dem Party. I have lived through both Bush and Clinton eras....for the middle class there is no way they are the same. No comparison.

    I want those Dem Party years back!

    I'm resolved to the fact that Sen Obama will be the nominee. (Not to my liking) And if the Dem Party loses the GE, I am going to revolt! As we all should.

    It is nosurprise that Sen Clinton does better with core Dems in the polls.

    I lived through them both also (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:25:56 PM EST
    I'll take the Clinton years, TYVM!!!

    I think Hillary may outperform Bill as president . . . Hope she gets the chance.


    Assuming without granting (5.00 / 4) (#228)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    that Obama is the nominee, and his strategy of demonizing the Clinton years is part of that reason.  What happens in the General election when McCain praises Clinton for some of the positive things like balancing the budget, paying down the national debt, welfare reform; Are the Obama folks not concerned that Mccain would get many of the Clinton supporters?  Supposing he persuades Collin Powel to be his Vice President?  Wouldn't that cut in half, Obama's AA support? perhaps even more than half?  I'm pretty sure that that is an option for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  Especially becausse Powell walked away from the Bush Adm. becausse of his basic opposition to the Iraq war.  Obama only talked about his opposition.  Powell acted and gave up a powerful position on principle.

    These Obama fanatics do not know what's going to hit them.

    yup (none / 0) (#251)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    McCain can carefully compliment Clinton, not too much mind you, but he can compliment here.  Maybe join together to do a bill, say something good about the hubby.

    It would Demonstrate Bipartisanship rather than be idle chat about bipartisanship.

    It's already factored in I think.

    Never thought of Powell though.  The UN business where he lied should have ended his active career.


    Obamacans not interested in November (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    its not clear that Obamacans ever had anything in mind other than beating the Clintons.

    I think they find perfectly acceptable not winning in November: in addition to beating the a Clinton, it also gives them 4 more years of republican rule to rail at.

    They seem to have come to the same place as their wingnut brethren - that its more fun to yell and scream about how effed-up things are and everybody is than actually doing anything about it. Obama's all speech and no action is perfect for that.

    Obama Is a Movement (5.00 / 5) (#231)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    One that has been able to co-opt some A-list bloggers and certain television networks because his movement matches their business model (read: all those young eyes advertisers pay to reach).

    But by its very definition, a movement excludes those who are not a part of it.  It invites in some people* the you're either "with us or against us" mentality because that's how you hold a movement together.  Which Kos and other bloggers are smart enough to pick up on and use.

    What's happening on the blogs is that they are run by people who want to be players in the democratic party, just as Obama wants to become the head of the democratic party.  Kos wants to be the new DLC, maybe not in terms of mirroring their policies, but in terms of their influence.  He wants YearlyKos to be the new Renaissance Weekend.  His success depends on Obama's success.  Having backed the movement, Kos and the other blogger boys now need it to succeed.  Otherwise their standing in the democratic party will be hurt.  Any attack on Obama, is an attack on them and, from their perspective, the party because they need Obama to be the party's future.

    This is how we get to the new definition of the democratic party as being essentially the Obama movement and so, if you aren't part of the movement, you aren't part of the party.  If you aren't for him, you're against not only him, but all of the people depending on him to lead them to the promised land.

    * I say some because, of course, most Obama supporters probably don't think of themselves as having joined any movement.  They probably think of themselves as people who voted for Obama because they think he's a better choice than Clinton, but would be perfectly happy to vote for Clinton in November (just as most Clnton voters will vote for Obama in November).  

    If Hillary gets the nomination, the rest of us (none / 0) (#286)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    will remember what Kos and his misogynist blog buddies said and did during the primaries. And it will, I hope, be a cold day in hell before they get to be in the DLC or have any major influence. People who get swept away by movements and lose their civilized veneer in the process don't belong in the policy end of any political party, let alone mine. If Kos wanted to be influential, he should have maintained a modicum of civility in his blog. He should have kept it on issues and policies. He didn't. He unleashed a torrent of hate against the most qualified candidate in the Dem field. He should pay for that lack of judgement, just like Obama should lose the nomination for his lack of judgement. Neither one of them belong in the driver's seat until they learn the rules of the road. So far, they have just been joyriding around running over people the Democratic party needs. Not a good way to get ahead, in my opinion. And when the rest of the grownups get back from the Obama rave, they will see that too. And Kos and his buds will be left with their disintegrating blogs. I wish them luck in their new careers.

    No seasoned dem who's old enough (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    to have lived thru and understood dem/rep politics since the late 70's/early 80's.   Forgive me if this was said already but I think this is a DNC vs. DLC thing.  I remember seeing Mr. Kos debate Harold Ford on MTP some time ago and it kinda reminds of what's happening now.  Old vs. new, and the idea that we needed to have a new democratic party because too many of "us" we're voting republican.  That mighta worked before, but it seems like the world changed a lot quicker than our party could so that old paradigm about a new party needs to change with it.  I think Mr. Dean, fresh of the euphoria of his presidency run put his eggs in the new dem basket - and convinced a lot of the old-timers to go along to get along.  The grand experiment seems to have failed.

    When your message is change... (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    If the message is change then everything that came before is "suspect" and gets a spin.

    It seems to be working. Sorry Bill. It's a "new era".

    yeah a new era with that produces (none / 0) (#246)
    by kimsaw on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    stuff like the video on George Steph... found on no quarter. So glad everybody is comfortable with the new era. I'm going to out to buy my kevlar now. Sorry but its creepy even if satirical.

    No they would not, the good news is their (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    are more Clinton and Positively America Dems and Independent leaning Dems then there are bloggers that are caught up in their extreme advocacy of a candidate that can not win the White House.  Hell, I'm not a Dem and I would not say that besides it is juts blame blame blame wallow in victim hood its everyone else fault hopelessness platform.

    They do not define the party (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    If they want a party where everybody is like them I'd say have at it.
    Call it the Hope party, end primaries, and simply crown they're god du jour.

    On administrations, age is no excuse for ignorance (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    Regarding younger voters who moosh the Clinton and Bush eras, youth is no excuse for not knowing the basics. Delete if OT, but to illustrate ...

    My husb and I were at a dinner party recently and he and another person there were discussing the Watergate era and getting into a bit of a mixup over it some of what went on. It was pretty entertaining. One of the other guests, who would have been somewhere between his late teens early twenties at the time said "Wow, you two really know your stuff."

    The thing is, most of the stuff the debaters were talking about wasn't arcane, hard to dig up Watergate-geek information but stuff that was in the news back when news had, ya know, NEWS in it.

    (Husb was a mere babe at the time, in the rattle and mashed carrots flinging sense, and maintains that he and Nixon were both sh!tting their pants at around the same time, though husb for more socially and age-appropriate reasons.)

    And the guy who always gently reminds me at certain social events to count to 329347948729847 before lunge-ing at the jugular of, eg, a Smirk Administration admirer or blowhard neo-con, or at least wait until I hear the squeal of the getaway car out front, just blew a gasket.

    How could this person be in the middle of such a historically defining time be so out of it? It's not like anyone could easily miss FRACKIN WATERGATE, &c. (After kicking his shins black and blue I had to pull out the emergency ball-gag.)

    How could anyone even now, say, above adolescence, be so unaware of immediate events that impact directly on their lives, or not know, from school about recent presidencies?

    I'm practically an idiot and by the time I was in middle school, watched the nightly news, read the newspaper at least a couple of times a week and ALWAYS read the fat weekend papers. I also had the benefit of learning what went on in domestic and world affairs from school.

    It's not that the kids are dumber; I know a lot of smart, quick, sharp kids who are well informed in certain areas, but only a few who have a broad interest in current events outside entertainment industry dreck, trends and, um, more entertainment industry dreck.

    I'm flabbergasted by this idea that younger voters wouldn't be able to distinguish between administrations.

    Dean on CNN (5.00 / 3) (#255)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    Wolf: how do superdeez decide...State's, votes, delegates?

    Dean: vote their conscience, that is what they are called upon to do.

    Dean: McCain in the low 40s, our candidates with spirited debate in the 40s.  McCain is Bush, polls mean nothing about Nov.  We will see what the polls say when we have our nominee.

    Wolf: Clinton ttacking Obama, (oops, he pulls up) chipping away at each other?

    Dean: you worry about that some, focus on Iraq economy, media is part of that (attacking), American people will not want Bush, millionaires (oops, isn't he?), gazillionaires, health care McCain does not support, McCain a step backwards.

    No major slip ups.  So no 'would a Dem' say that.

    A "Democrat" might not say it... (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by fiver5 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    but many progressives would.  The corporate hold on the Democratic party, exemplified by Bill Clinton and wholly personified by Hillary, is disconcerting to many progressives who feel that NAFTA and deregulation was a bad idea, $50 million in speaking fees is a corporate payoff, and that corporate attorneys are far more at home in the Republican party than the supposed party of the people.

    Many people feel that the way to beat Republicans is to mimick them - a standing tenet of the DLC; others believe they should be fought.

    this is the reason for all of it (5.00 / 2) (#262)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    Last night's Democratic presidential debate hosted by ABC News, the National Constitution Center, and WPVI-TV was easily the most-watched of the 2008 presidential cycle. The debate averaged 10.7 million Total Viewers

    Ratings (none / 0) (#270)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    And as a result, ABC and the other networks will look at those ratings and conclude that that's the right way to run a debate.

    This is commercial media.  They have one, and only one, god: Ratings.  Never, ever, forget that.


    The Creative Class: NO Clas (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    They now made a disgusting video of George Stephanopoulos.  What happens when you don't know history, he had no great love lost with the Clintons.  What a bunch of babies.  

    SUSA Ohio Clinton 53 McCain 42 and McCain beats O (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST

    do you think they realize (4.80 / 5) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    that they are beginning to sound a tad desperate?

    Beginning? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    the web is redolent (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    with the fetid smell of panic today.
    breath it in.

    a tad? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:44:40 PM EST
    Blind Hate (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    is what we are witnessing.  I am so sad for our country.  I wonder why are some people that support Obama are so divisive?

    A dissenting view (3.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Steven Donegal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    First, I'm not sure that the basic premise of the views expressed (small-towns in the Rustbelt were hurting in the 90s and they are still hurting today) isn't accurate.  The phrasing could have been better, but this is a political campaign and shots get taken.  

    Second, I voted for Bill Clinton twice.  I thought then (and still think) that he was a pretty good president.  That said, I would not vote for him a third time.  I respect Mrs.  Clinton and think she  would be a competent president and she certainly has more courage and integrity than her husband.  I will not vote for her, however.  I think she has run a poor campaign, I do not trust or respect many of her advisors and I do not want Bill Clinton back in the White House in any capacity. WYSIWYG.  In 08, I'll go with Mr. Obama.

    A question: You state that you (none / 0) (#285)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    do not trust her.  Do you have concrete information that proves her as dishonest beyond reasonalble doubt, say like Bush and the GOP? Or is it differences of opinion about policies, what?  I am seriously trying to get at this issue since I don't distrust her.  I am not in love with her and she has done a few things I do not agree with but trust in leadership is quite a big quality and her long record of accomplishments make me not disrust her.  And please do not bring up racism, since I believe that is political BS.  I do agree that Mark Penn is awful, but then David Axelrod is not my idea of a honest person either.  Look him up.

    Off subject but look at Italy and its far left (none / 0) (#157)
    by lily15 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM EST
    Two years of a mess and Berlosconi is back stronger and with more right support than before.  The leftist policies were discredited.  This was a landslide election.  And now they are moving away from their little parties to have two major parties.  The Communist Party was kicked out completely. Interesting.  I still think there is a dark purpose of the lead Obabaites to destroy or weaken the Democratic Party....whereas Clinton can rebuild and strengthen it.  The attacks on all things Clinton are the clue.  Because few can argue with the numbers.  Everyone was better off.  But the purpose of the Obama supporters is to revise history and convince people that the Clintons were as bad as all those Republicans.  And this is patently a false rendering of history.  So the question must be asked....what is the underlying purpose?  How sinister the motives and the actors?  I would put nothing beyond the Rove element. Including manipulating the left or being paid off.  Clearly, most of the press has been paid off.

    Leftist Policies (none / 0) (#164)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    Were discreditted after Carter.

    I do see Obama trying to distance himself from Carter now finally.

    Even though Zbignew, Carter's FP advisor endorsed Obama a long time ago.  And that was big news at the time.


    7 million Americans were raised out of poverty (none / 0) (#256)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    During Clinton's administration.

    How many Americans do you expect will be raised out of poverty during Obama's administration?

    Noooo Mike (none / 0) (#259)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    It was disingenuous of Markos to ignore Bill Clinton's point, And it is disingenuous of you to ignore the point of my post - Markos' earlier "Hillary is not a Dem" post is hard to take ESPECIALLY when he is pleased with the notion that the Clinton Administration was no better than the bush Administration.

    I think your comment is pretty darn disingenuous.

    Are you saying you believe (none / 0) (#266)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    "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."

    Are you damning yourself there Mike? Because if YOU DO NOT believe that, then how in blazes can you be called naive in that?

    Both you and Markos play the same game here - it is quite disingenuous of BOTH OF YOU.


    You leave out the end (none / 0) (#274)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    If you are young OR OLD and you believe that nonsense, then naive is a NICe word for it.

    Do you approve of (none / 0) (#267)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    Using the lincoln bedroom talking point and calling Dems flip floppers?

    BTW on the RWTPs (none / 0) (#268)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    Do you approve of accusing a Dem candidate for Prez of "saying and doing anything?" your outrage is QUITE selective Mike.

    You see, I ripped Clinton for her RW crap. I ripped Obnama for his RQ crap.

    I ripped NBC for its BS against Clinton.

    I ripped ABC for its BS against Obama.

    The LEft blogs suck and you know it.


    I do not know Mike (none / 0) (#282)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    I do not post at daily kos. I am glad top hear it.

    It seemed you cam here accusing me of NOT critiquing it.

    Were you questioning MY integrity?


    I am answering with my reasoning (none / 0) (#294)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    you can accept it or not. The question of Dem bona fides has been a Kos concern today and mine as well.

    to me it was about the last part, not the first.


    No no no no no (none / 0) (#283)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    Don't go.

    Not before showing us your valiant efforts with axxholish Obama supporters.

    I'd like to see that.


    I had not seen it (none / 0) (#289)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:19:42 PM EST
    That's awesome.

    I especially like the dialog between you and Geekesque.

    That is excellent.  I think you agree with BTD's point then, you just don't like the consequences, that dailykos must now be deemed a destructive force in the party.

    Indeed you have clearly advised them to behave better.

    They have not.


    Again (none / 0) (#293)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    It's nice to see one of the "two wrongs don't make it right" folks actually have some record of criticizing the first wrong.

    Although I do now see you seem to have given up the good fight after Nov.  07.

    BTD isn't a partisan, so I'm obviouslyy speaking for myself.  Because I know full well no one in the Obama camp listened to you or took you seriously, I still have a choice.

    Let them land the low blows and take the high road, or get down in the muck and fight back?

    It's a tough decision.  History is just as much stocked with stories of those who chose the high road and lost as much as anything else.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#261)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    It would take complete blindness to think the bush years were as good as the Clinton years.

    Look in the mirror.

    Dangerous territory... (none / 0) (#264)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    we all are free to express our opinions.  I am concerned that your source supporting your ideas appears very far left leaning... You make many claims and your source material is suspect to me.

    I really do not recall any Marxist society that helped anyone but a select few.  I am sorry, I just do not agree with your arguments.  

    I have also noted that this extreme left shift is fueling the undercurrent of exchanges.  Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  I think we need to discuss these ideas that are paraded as change which is circulating in certain circles.  

    Am I alone in my concern?

    BTD, you and a few others are voices of (none / 0) (#284)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    reason in this online wasteland.

    Thank you.  And thanks to Jeralyn for providing the platform.

    "has become"??? More like (none / 0) (#295)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    "always was"