home

Can Bill Clinton Save Obama's Tax Cut Deal

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:32:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Former president Bill Clinton joined President Obama in the briefing room today where Clinton endorsed Obama's tax cut deal with Republicans.

I heard a large segment on the radio driving back from the jail. Clinton clearly misses the spotlight. Obama left (saying he had already kept the first lady waiting 30 minutes) and Clinton kept taking questions, even after Robert Gibbs called "last question."

Clinton said the deal is the best alternatives for Americans. Can he sway enough Democrats?

The Washington Post has this graphic on what the tax deal means for you.

< Friday Open Thread | CNBC: "Cannabis Gold Rush" >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Can Bill Clinton Save Obama's Tax Cut Deal | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Doesn't this make Obama look (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    terribly weak? I don't remember GHW  Bush bringing Reagan to the WH to  sell his policies.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    it does and Obama leaving only made it worse.

    Parent
    Obama & Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by norris morris on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:18:52 PM EST
    Our dear leader couldnt even stay. He used the lame excuse that the wife was waiting. How utterly ridiculous.

    He appeared even sillier as he left Clinton to the details as we know the Professor dosen't know how to 'splain things to us commoners.

    Despite Clinton trying to close the deal, the Elephant was still in the room and the Estate Tax giveaway is totally unconscionable.

    This is one stinking situation for Democracy as we knew it.

    Parent

    I agree the whole thing is (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    embarrassing, but to be fair, Obama leaving was the respectful thing to do if the intention was to "Let Bill be Bill."  It would have been ugly, I think, to have Bill holding forth with Obama standing there either just listening, or worse interrupting, etc.

    Bill was his usual dazzling, fabulous self, conducting a lesson on how to communicate with both the public and the press knowledgeably and in a confidence-inspiring way.

    But if you're going to bring Bill in for any public comments, you do best to just get out of the way and let him do it, seems to me.

    I did think Obama left pretty gracelessly, but it was the right thing to do.

    One of my greatest regrets about the whole Monica mess was that BC quit giving press conferences for a couple years.  I'd happily watch tapes of the old ones.  Always a virtuoso tour de force.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:00:52 AM EST
    I agree that Obama hanging around wouldn't have been much better but the worse thing about Obama leaving was that it appeared that he had more important things to do (attend a Christmas party with Michelle!) than attend to American people.

    I personally think it was a mistake to bring Bill into this at all.

    Parent

    Obama left (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    to attend a holiday party that was going on.

    Parent
    Site Violator! (none / 0) (#136)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    Spam.

    Parent
    No, he just brought in his father's (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    cabinet to make his policies.

    Parent
    Oops, wrong bush, sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:11:16 PM EST


    Parent
    The prior prez has to have (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    some credibility in the area in dispute and otherwise not be unpopular overall, else it does look quite weak and even desperate.

    On what matter would Poppy have needed to bring in Ronnie?  He didn't get to be unpopular until his final year, and then it was a general malaise among the public that set in about his domestic policies and indifference to same.  Besides, Reagan hadn't quite been deified by the GOP propagandists by the end of the Poppy presidency, and was not exactly the ridiculously overrated prez he later became.

    For Clinton, since his 2d term as gov in Ark, he'd had a Carter problem, and given Carter's own limited cred as president, the chances there for Bill with Jimmy were limited.  And so on as we go back through the presidents, many of whom since LBJ have left office badly dinged in popularity and credibility.

    Parent

    LBJ The Last Fighter (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by norris morris on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    The domestic policies of LBJ have not been seen for a long time and the current Democratic Party is about the same as the GOP, just not as good at parlimentary procedure, word framing, and messaging.

    And oh yes, the GOP fight hard and have no shame while our past due Dems slink around, have terrible timing, know nothing about messaging, and are a mess.  The liberals in the party  wait until it's too late when they finally start showing some spine.

    Parent

    Bill was actually a good (none / 0) (#80)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    fighter, particularly considering the quantity and ferocity of his opponents and that his party's liberal wing was often soft, divided or absent in support.  Certainly more effective at fighting for his policies and presidency than Carter or Obama so far.

    LBJ was a fighter for his war for sure, and if any of his law-abiding war critics spoke out, he sicced the FBI, CIA and IRS on them.  He had more than a little of the authoritarian, bullying Repug in him even with a few nice liberal bills to his credit.  Not exactly a good role model for Dems, unless you want to go down some of Lyndon's dark alleys where anything goes.

    Parent

    BC is just plain smarter about (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:01:01 PM EST
    politics in general, and I think that's because he understands people better.  The really striking thing to me in contrast to Obama is BC's willingness, eagerness actually, and ability to explain policy choices and options in a fair amount of detail-- iow, assuming his audience is grown-ups who are capable of understanding things.  Obama prefers to speak publicly only in generalities and platitudes, which only frustrates a public that wants to know what the hell is going on and what's being planned for them.

    Parent
    Wholly agree with you (none / 0) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    on BC's skills, but....

    I am very upset that BC allowed himself to be used to support this so-called tax compromise.  It's time now to draw a line in the sand, and speak out to save the nation.  This so-called compromise is one of many disasters from this Admin for the current state and long-term future of the country.

    Parent

    So far as I can tell (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    he never addressed the ultimate issue: does he believe that this agreement would make it virtually certain that the Bush tax cuts would be made permanent? I do, and that's why I cannot support it.

    Right there with you, andgarden. (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    Not only does this bill virtually guarantee that the tax cuts become permanent, it also takes a slice out of Social Security. That cut in the payroll tax is going to look like a mighty big tax increase when it is set to expire in one year. Bob Corker has already said that the Repubs will treat any move to bump the payroll tax back up as a major tax increase.

    Apparently, not enough people were buying into the ridiculous notion that SS is bankrupt (it is not), so Obama and friends decided to try something different. If this cuts take place and stay in place the SS trust fund will get into trouble. And the Pete Peterson dream of destroying SS will be realized.

    Whatever small short-term gains may come from this bill are so hugely outweighed by the long-term losses it will bring.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:32:28 PM EST
    The duplicity of selling the gutting of SS as a stimulus is particularly galling. Sure, if we paid no FICA at all we'd all have more money to spend now - and no retirement income.

    Parent
    Yup. That's exactly the cynical plan (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    they are banking on. Why more congresspeople aren't talking about this aspect of the bill is really galling to me.

    Parent
    My husband said that at work (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:48:05 PM EST
    today they took a senseless survey about all this that was happening today, and there are more Conservatives in that building than there will ever be Liberals...lots of Independents too though.  He said that Everyone, Everyone, Everyone agreed they don't need any tax holidays and you can just let their tax cut expire.  They are willing to just EAT IT, deal with the loss of it....because they all said that at the rate the nation and the economy is going they don't even understand how they will have jobs in the end or how the military will wrap up two wars or seriously be able to stand its ground anyplace that we must.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    When conservative military folks start questioning our ability to "win," you know we're in trouble...

    Parent
    War costs a lot of money now (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:56:35 PM EST
    and they all know that.  We don't treat soldiers like cannnon fodder much these days, but they are up to date on what that state of the art is costing us in treasure. Did you know that if you inherit a large fortune or win the lottery or something, the Army will no longer allow you to fly any of its 24 million dollar aircraft?  They actually reserve the right to make you pay for something if you were to take it for a joy ride.  And it is believed that if you could actually pay for the vehicle out of pocket you would not respect it properly and could not be trusted fully with the responsibility of it.  They all have a very good idea of what their vehicles cost though because the military does reserve the right to make you pay if you abuse.

    Parent
    MT, it's not a question of (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    willing or not willing.  It's a question of the amount of $$ available to the economy.  That's especially true for folks on the lower end of the income scale.  If I have to hang onto that extra however many hundred bucks for taxes, it ain't gonna get spent buying basic stuff I need but can manage to survive without if I have to.

    Multiply that by a few million folks struggling to get by.  One of the things I badly need is help getting stuff done around my property that needs doing that I can't do myself.  If that extension of the tax cut goes through, my share is going straight into the pocket of those workmen/laborers, most of whom are suffering because people like me have cut back so much, I otherwise simply can't afford to hire.

    Parent

    That was my take that everyone (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    was concerned about.  You can't justify having the military that we have while the people are suffering.  There isn't anything resembling a democracy there....now you are starting to look like a banana republic.

    I think that most soldiers have always been proud of the fact that they are a strong and highly functioning force because they belong to, protect, and are funded by a strong highly functioning democracy of people.  That's starting to go down the bull$hit road now and it is making them all very uncomfortable.

    Parent

    One of the most admirable (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    qualities of the military is pragmatism. I had heard the phrase "fall on my sword" before entering, but witnessed people, enlisted, warrant and officer ranks, do it.

    Knowing the consequences and doing the right thing. Most lifers get it. Sometimes you have to, even if it's a career-ender.

    It's called integrity.

    Parent

    They aren't talking about it (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    because it's not.  See my comment above.

    Parent
    No, no, no, no, no (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:03:01 PM EST
    The cut in the payroll tax is explictly to be paid for out of the general fund.  It is NOTNOTNOT a cut in SS revenues.  At all.  NOT.

    Parent
    Read my comment a bit more closely. (none / 0) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:31:45 PM EST
    Yes, this immediate 2 % cut that is scheduled to end in one year, will be paid for out of the general fund. My concern is next year, when Congress is confronted with bumping the payroll tax back up to the current level.

    Republicans have already said that they will consider and attempt to end that 2 % cut as a tax increase, and they will vigorously fight it. I have no faith that either Obama or the Dems will successfully fight that. And at that point the general fund stops reimbursing the Social Security trust fund for the lost revenue; the trust fund is now losing 2% of its revenue every year; and voila, there is now an ongoing shortfall. In the end, it most certainly is a cut to SS.

    As always, the devil is in the details. The short-term gains of this bill do not outweigh the long-term losses.

    Parent

    That cannot be done (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:48:33 PM EST
    without a change to the SS law itself, which ain't gonna happen.

    There's an absurd level of hysteria being whipped up about this on some of the less responsible lefty blogs.  If Gopers and bad Dems want to go after SS, they don't need this as an excuse.  Please.  There are lots of things to lose sleep over, this isn't one of them.

    Parent

    Oh, gyrfalcon, so many things have (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    happened in the last couple of years about which I would have once stated "ain't gonna happen." Sadly, I was wrong.

    So, forgive me if I don't share your optimism. I have no trouble imagining this president and these Democratic Congressional caucuses completely giving in to a Republican push to make this 2% payroll tax cut permanent. It's all about our new era of bipartisanship, doncha know?

    Parent

    Apologies if I misread (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:50:01 PM EST
    your comment, but there's been so many blog posts and comments in so many places that get the funding of this wrong, I assumed yours was yet another one of them.

    Parent
    What General Fund? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    You mean the Visa Card?

    Parent
    The optics (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    were bad. It was like Obama sent his father Bill Clinton in to tell the company that Obama worked for to tell them that he can do a better job and then the son (Obama) says he has to leave for a party???

    It's like Obama just abdicated the whole mess over to Clinton to handle. Why did he schedule a press conference if he didn't want Michelle waiting?

    Even Bill Clinton can't polish this turd of a bill.

    Where to begin? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:00:31 PM EST
    I've said this elsewhere but I'm fine saying it again.  I love Bill Clinton, I don't have Clinton derangment syndrome, was called a vile PUMA too...but this is about the policy and this crap deal is horrible horrible policy.

    And Clinton's administration set the stage for much of this meltdown, it was his economic philosophies and the economic people he aligned the Democratic party with that have now allowed Wall Street to own a Democratic President and shove it's arm up the President's backside and make his mouth move.  Clinton's endorsement on this issue isn't worth the powder to blow it up.  He has no serious answer or real solution to what has happened to our country.  And not just his past economic leadership history but also his endorsement of this horrible legislation makes that utterly clear too.

    You know what though? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    Could he really not endorse it? If he didn't it would be all about how he's against it because he wants his wife to be President etc.

    That being said I think it's crap legislation too.

    Parent

    I thought about that, but (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    if he thought the deal was a bad one, he didn't have to fly overnight to Washington for the big meet, and certainly didn't have to agree to the press conference.  He's visited with Obama before without doing that.

    I also didn't detect a whiff of insincerity in what he said.


    Parent

    If it has anything at all to do with his wife, it (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:25:43 PM EST
    would be to underscore the meme, "not a dimes worth of difference" and make the Hillary supporters less sure of why they can't support Obama. Seems Bill would have advised her to do the very same thing Obama did.

    Parent
    I see what you are talking about (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:07:41 PM EST
    He would be accused of sabotaging the Democratic President.  Hmmmmmmm....yeah, maybe

    Parent
    He had better (none / 0) (#56)
    by dead dancer on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    endorse; or he would have to go off the reservation again (cigar anyone!).

    Parent
    Weird (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    Did anyone think a Clinton wouldn't support an expansion of the oligarchy, he's a member?.... but it just feels weird to trot out someone so hmmm? old hat?  A person who's policies started on the road to economic collapse?  

    I think this chart is simple.... and keep in mind, people under $40k are experiencing an increase overall under the entire package.

    blame (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by dandelion on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    At least Clinton blamed Republicans for the difficulties in getting a good package through instead of sanctimonious Democratic purists.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    that says a lot. You have been one of his biggest defenders here.

    And unfortunately I agree with the fact that he has turned out to be every bit as bad if not worse than I thought he would be.

    I'm not likely to ever vote Republican, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:26:38 PM EST
    either. Both parties are pretty despicable these days. In fact, I am having a hard time figuring out just what, of substance, would be different now if McCain had won instead of Obama.

    Setting aside the Palin factor, what would be different? Would we still have the constitution crushing national security apparatus? Yes. Would we have doubled down in Afghanistan? Yes. Would we still be in Iraq? Why, yes we would. Would DADT still be the law of the land. It is and it would be.

    Would Medicare and SS be under attack? Yes again. Would health care still be held hostage to corporate profits? Yes. Would there still be no viable option to corporate health insurance? Another yes.

    Sounds like a McCain presidency would look shockingly like the Obama presidency.

    Now I feel like drinking myself into a stupor. Someone, please, tell me why we had to have Obama?

    Like I said above (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:28:23 PM EST
    Justice Stevens got to retire and not be replaced by a maniac. That's about it.

    Parent
    Well, I hope Ginsburg's health holds out. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    Because you gotta know Obama's next SC nominee is more likely than not to be a member of the Federalist Society. Just another of those compromises he has to make with the Repubs.

    Parent
    And that's more important (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    than Obama driving the economy off a cliff?

    Parent
    Considering that McCain would (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    have been at least as bad, without question, yes.

    Parent
    Not to mention Iran... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:34:53 AM EST
    I still believe mccain would have pushed hard for a preemptive strike.

    Parent
    And you know what? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:31:50 PM EST
    If the Senate Dems had a spine, then even a McCain presidency wouldn't have been able to put up a maniac. How would McCain have been able to get a maniac through 60 Dem Senators?

    Parent
    With relative ease (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    You know Democrats controlled the Senate when Bush I nominated Thomas, right?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    but they also knocked another one off (Bork) and a lot of Dems were afraid to vote against him because he was black.

    Parent
    Say it takes a couple of tries? (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:36:57 PM EST
    At the end of the day, it's a catastrophic failure.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:47:31 PM EST
    but good luck selling that supreme court argument in '12 if that's the only one Obama has. Roe v. Wade sure isn't going to be a selling point and if someone retires before Obama leaves office, he might even nominate a conservative too in the spirit of "bipartisanship"

    Parent
    Roe is just the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:51:47 PM EST
    of what is at stake. Look, Democrats suck, but Republicans suck so much worse it's barely even worth discussing.

    Parent
    Crappy, unfortunately (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:22:22 PM EST
    is always better than batsh*t insane.

    Parent
    Agree, appeals to what (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    might happen with Scotus picks in a different admin tend not to get much traction with the electorate.

    Re picking a conservative for the Ct, only if he wants to guarantee he's a one-termer.

    Parent

    See any difference in (none / 0) (#124)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    ultimate results from a Bork vs. Roberts or Alito as SC judge?

    Parent
    Well, I hope Ginsburg's health holds out. (none / 0) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    Because you gotta know Obama's next SC nominee is more likely than not to be a member of the Federalist Society. Just another of those compromises he has to make with the Repubs.

    Parent
    Actually O's Scotus (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    appointments have been the one consistently good thing about his presidency.  It's a reminder that he's not an actual dyed-in-the-wool Repub.  

    In other areas of course, he's been as much conservative Repub as moderate Dem and hard to figure out except as he seems to be trying to be this Ike-like bipartisan figure above all the usual DC political grime.

    Parent

    If McCain were prez, the Dems would have acted (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    much, much differently during this past Congress. They would have stood and fought for people and for the Dem Party's principles.

    With Obama as president, they couldn't do that without coming out against Obama.

    Neat trap those money men put the Dems into when they decided to back their made man, Obama.

    Parent

    I have the greatest respect for the former (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:26:43 PM EST
    President but he can't help President Obama here. The Big Dog does not have political bite anymore. Former Presidents generally do not. Clinton has an extraordinary intellect, grasp of the issues and political acumen, but he does not have the political muscle. President Obama has to handle this one.

    Speaking for me only

    Agree, but it was (none / 0) (#40)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:46:59 PM EST
    a very reasonable card to play, so why not give it a try.  No downside and possible stanching of the political bleeding on the upside.

    Parent
    Probably the most alarming thing (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:51:02 PM EST
    I read this week - well, one of the things I read that alarmed me, anyway - is that Obama wants to make tax reform his cause in 2011; honestly, when I heard that, I just felt sick.

    Sick because he seems to have completely bought in to the whole deficit hysteria thing, has lost track - if he was ever on track - of the growing problem with income inequality, either has no faith in the power of government to step in to help drive the economy up, or he's still convinced - despite years of evidence that it doesn't work - that trickle-down economics is the best way to go.

    The Bill Clinton rescue maneuver?  Jesus God, why, Bill?  Why is the Bill Clinton who raised taxes in order to achieve more income equality and "lift all boats" signing on to economic policy that's going to do just the opposite?  Why is he signing on to a deal that further lines the wallets of the rich, while maybe giving everyone else something akin to chump change, while putting Social Security at greater risk?

    I am enormously disappointed in Clinton - I don't care that he may be doing this to save the Democratic brand, because what he's doing is not saving the Democratic brand that had the back of the average guy, but the New Democratic brand that is nearly indistinguishable from the Reagan brand.

    I don't know where this is all going, but none of the options look particularly attractive.

    When I heard Obama on NPR this morning (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    yammering about instituting tax reform, I yelled at the air and flipped the radio off. Tax reform is the next big thing?? More proof that Obama has totally abandoned Democratic principles and economic policies. "Tax reform" is a classic republican meme. What we really need is A JOBS CREATION PLAN and yet... total silence on the matter from Obama.

    At first I thought he just didn't get it--why Dems lost the election--but now I know the truth: that he just doesn't care.

    Parent

    He just doesn't care (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:30:54 PM EST
    That's exactly right.  That's the hard truth.  He's not into the job at all and he just doesn't care.  Pathetic, isn't it?  

    Parent
    HAH! (none / 0) (#68)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    That's what I did too.

    Parent
    gives me the shakes (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by zyx on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:33:18 PM EST
    Obama "negotiating" a tax reform package.

    Just kill me now.

    Parent

    VAT (none / 0) (#67)
    by dandelion on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:49:43 PM EST
    VAT here we come.

    Parent
    Not for nothing did Obama praise St. Ronnie and (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    tell the Reno Journal Gazette editorial board he thought Republcans had most of the good ideas the preceding 10-15 years.

    Obama: "I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

    That was January, 2008 -- we had warning, but his set piece speeches gave a much different idea of the man and what he would do. A triumph of marketing over substance.

    Parent

    Just curious... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:54:03 PM EST
    reading this quote, "Obama left (saying he had already kept the first lady waiting 30 minutes)" made me angry.

    This guy is telling us to go fk ourselves.

    Are we just going to continue to take it? To believe that this guy is even human?

    Makes one wonder if he sticks around (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:02:57 PM EST
    for the duration of other important meetings. Seriously, it's reminding me of GWB getting bored and going to bed at 9:00 every night.

    Parent
    Hey it's hard work...... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by sneezy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:08:16 PM EST
    Seriously, you're the Prez.  That's your job.  I think she'll understand, and if she doesn't, you shouldn't have run for the office.  

    Yeah, it angered me too.

    Parent

    There was a PARTY waiting (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:20:49 PM EST
    IIRC (and, I'm not going to go looking for it), not too long after they took over Michelle was asked in an interview what was different about the Obama administration. She responded, "there are more parties at the WH."

    He never misses the fun stuff that comes with the title.


    Parent

    Oh, man (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:26:15 PM EST
    if you think White House parties are "fun," especially for the president, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I want to talk to you about.

    Parent
    That's the problem, it's hard work (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    and Obama has NO interest in doing the hard work.  He's not going to be making a bunch of calls, running up to the Hill, twisting arms, to make something happen.  Way too much work for him.  He's not interested.  He doesn't care enough to put in that kind of effort.  period.  He has parties to attend and vacations to take!  

    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    the Poppy Bush watch moment. You just don't tell the American people that you don't have time for them.

    Parent
    he's not saying that (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:10:47 PM EST
    This guy is telling us to go fk ourselves.

    he's saying that he is in way over his head - as has been clear for months now

    Parent

    Realistically (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    We have no choice. Or, we do, but in my view the alternative is far worse.

    If you try to set your mind back to 2005.

    Parent

    to complete that thought (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    . . .you might see what I mean.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    that's what the GOP tried selling in 2008 about Obama was going to be way worse than McCain and it didn't work.

    That type of argument only really works with low hanging fruit.

    We are going to have to have another Republican for the American people to totally get it that Republican policies will destroy this country. Unfortunately, Obama can't really make that case.

    Parent

    For those of us who know it's true (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    Obama is essentially irrelevant.

    I am not "the American people." I am just one individual who watches too much CSPAN.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:17:39 PM EST
    I was talking about the electorate in general not you specifically.

    There's about 40% of the country that will come out and vote for Obama for reelection and there's about another 40% that will vote for any republican. The other 20% seems to decide the elections.

    Parent

    I'm betting that a large percentage (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:23:05 PM EST
    of the other 20% will vote for Obama again.

    But that's just a prediction. I could be wrong.

    Parent

    Depends on the Repub running (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    I would think.

    Parent
    in context (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:21:52 AM EST
    From what I heard: A reporter asked Clinton something about his advice to Obama. Clinton responded that he has a policy that when he discusses something with someone like the President, he doesn't disclose what they talked about but lets the person, here Obama, make the call as to whether to disclose details of their discussion. At that point, Obama said something like "Here's what I have to say. I'm leaving, I've kept the first lady waiting..." In other words, it was his joking way of saying he wasn't going to reveal what advice Clinton gave him.

    Parent
    Frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    I think he should have said that he didn't want to discuss it at the moment - that he wanted to think about it. Something like a mature individual - if in fact that is what he wanted to express.

    Joking - saying that his wife is expecting him at a party - is callous as far as I'm concerned with respect to the American people. It makes him seem very unaware or unconcerned about the plight of the American people and the potentially fearful consequences of his deal with the republicans.

    Parent

    The can't keep the "little misses" (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    waiting comment struck me as pretty old-fashioned.  Sort of Ozzie and Harriet stuff-- got to go, all you boys will understand, got to keep 'em happy, she will be stomping her foot etc....

    Parent
    Hhmm--that may be the only source of pleasure left (none / 0) (#133)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    to us non-Uberwealthy under the Obama Republican tax regime.

    Parent
    unbelievably unprofessional (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by dandelion on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    I can't think of any seasonsed politician who'd leave a press conference like that.  And to leave a press conference about economic issues because he has to go to a party?  Isn't there any PR person in the WH who could foresee how this would look?  

    Arrogant was my take (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    Horribly horribly arrogant

    Parent
    This was awful, just awful... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by masslib on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    Seeing Bill Clinton embrace Bush economics over his very own Clinton tax policy.  Painful to watch.

    For Forty Minutes (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Sweet Sue on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:47:34 PM EST
    For forty minutes this afternoon, I had a glorious flashback-it was 1996-and Bill Clinton was the President and all was well.
    He was red in the face, pounding the podium and creating jobs like hellzapoppin.
    Let us pray that Chelsea births triplets.

    Triplets won't affect (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    the break she gets in the Estate Tax.

    Parent
    payroll tax holiday? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by glennmcgahee on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:18:42 AM EST
    Does anybody really believe that after a year of the payroll tax holiday it will be restored so that the middle class gets a tax increase? Not on your life with the elections being 1 year away. That begins the gutting of Social Security as they will all begin to say that there's not enough money in the lockbox anymore and Social Security will have to be eliminated. Thats OK though because Goldman Sachs will be ready to take those savings from you and invest it for your future.
    BC might have said he was trying to help Obama but what he really said was this was the best Obama could do. Thats what you get if you voted for the guy. 2 years are up. Obama never kept a job longer than that. He's obviously done with this one too now.

    What Clinton did NOT say was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    he said it "is the best deal available."  Not that it is in itself the best path.  Sure, if you're intent on dealing on this it is a good deal.  Is it better than no deal?  Is it necessary?  Hardly.

    Would the GOP deny unemployment benefits and watch their "mandate" evaporate in record time?

    Of course Dollar Bill likes the deal. (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    He gets a piece of the millionaire tax break.

    Eh, I doubt it (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    If he cared that much about a few thousand bucks this way or that, I really doubt he would have spent days of his own time on the campaign trail this past fall for Democrats.

    Parent
    Because Democrats... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:34:14 PM EST
    ...can't be as much of a corporatist that the the Repubs are?  

    Who's interests is he representing?  'Cause I got to tell you, as a work-a-day stiff who's been subjected to a pay freeze for over 5 years and and various other little tricks like furloughs and whatnot, I sure don't think he's got my best interests at heart with his support of this deal.  

    Parent

    These tax cuts are almost (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:40:05 PM EST
    a pure matter of ideology. Except for a couple of members of the Walton family, almost nobody will really notice the difference. Especially not in the top brackets.

    And Bill Clinton would probably still defend the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy if you asked him about it directly.

    Parent

    The dispute here (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    isn't over what's ideal.  The issue is what's possible.  You think the GOP would go for anything you and I would design, you're nuts.  And I know you're not nuts.

    BC was not endorsing this deal as a "good thing," only that it was the best we were going to get out of the GOP, and better than no deal at all.  Full stop.

    Parent

    It most certainly is not better (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:35:19 PM EST
    than no deal at all. This deal is a fiscal IED just waiting for the to blow-up in our faces.

    Parent
    We disagree on that (none / 0) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:52:46 PM EST
    but I understand your position on it.  I think if the economy doesn't begin to show signs of some recovery, there'll be a Republican, any Republican, in the White House after 2012, not to mention the suffering of real people in the meantime, and then see what kind of IEDs go off in our faces and how long the effects will last.

    Parent
    And the latest poll says (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    Romney could beat Obama.

    Obama's down to 42% approval in this poll.  He's nearing the point of no (or unlikely) return.

    Parent

    Polls two years before an election (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    In 2008, everyone--everyone--was predicting HRC would be the nominee and that she would likely lose to whomever the GOP candidate was.

    Parent
    Oh, I'm as nutty as a PayDay bar... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:55:10 PM EST
    ...trust me.  But, even I know there is a difference between negotiation/compromise and complete capitulation.  Right now what's on the table is the latter--we didn't even try for the former, IMO.  

    We seem to be more interesting in rolling over to  people like Chuck Grassley by giving him even more subsidies for his corporate ethanol buddies than we are making sure the majority of Americans get a fair shake.  

    I don't see how that's in my best interest.


    Parent

    Once again, the "negotiation" (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    began with concession, an automatic assumption that it wouldn't be possible to do "X," and, once again, signaled weakness and vulnerability to even more concession.

    Which, of course, ensued.

    But here's the other thing: as policy, the only sense it really makes is in the context of a snapshot that crops out of the picture the coming Republican majority in the House and the certainty that once they get the tax cuts they wanted, their deficit hysteria will rear its ugly head again, and we will be on a fast track to spending cuts in areas that are really going to hurt people.

    And, to make things worse, we have Obama also talking about getting serious about the deficit, about making "tough choices," and wanting to make tax reform a signature issue in 2011; I shudder to think what he can engineer on that front with the help of like-minded conservative Dems and the GOP.  And if he does for tax reform what he's done for health reform...well, the mind reels just a bit, ya know?

    As for Bill Clinton, there is no way on God's green earth he doesn't also know what the big picture looks like, and he has once again come to the rescue in service of the politics - the Democratic brand - and abandoned the policy.  

    Unlike a lot of people, I don't automatically assume that if Bill is for something that it's a good thing and we should all just stop thinking, and paying attention and sign on to whatever he's telling us to sign on to.  Bill Clinton is, in my opinion, wrong to support policy that isn't going to get the economy moving, and which is the prelude to more pain and austerity that, if there is anything to be taken from the lessons of Ireland, Great Britain and Greece, may be putting us on the road to ruin.

    I hope I'm wrong, but since pretty much everything I was afraid would happen over the last two years has happened, I think I'm more likely to be right on this, too - and there's no comfort at all in that, none.

    Parent

    I much preferred the days when Bill Clinton talked (none / 0) (#134)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    about how if people played by the rules they should come out OK.

    Our lowest earners, under $20K for individuals and under $40K for families, will see a tax increase -- slight one at the top of that level, but an increase, and it's worse for the lowest earners. People at the lower end were getting an extra $400 per year for individuals and $800 for families -- now, people earning around $10K will get $200. 50% increase. Neat, huh?

    Obama is NOT a progressive, especially on taxes.

    Of course, view him as a conservative (he claims he's a Blue Dog Dem, btw) and his actions make sense.

    Why is he doing this? "Because he's a conservative!"

    Parent

    actually, Ben, the fact that he gets that piece (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by DFLer on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:48:14 AM EST
    was one of the first things he said
    And I want to make full disclosure, you know, I make quite a bit of money now, so that the position that the Republicans have urged will personally benefit me. And on its own, I wouldn't support it because I don't think that my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again. But I don't want to be in the dark about the fact that I will receive the continuation of the tax rates.

    for what it's worth...

    Parent

    Yes, BC never denied he was getting a break (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    As Howie Kurtz wrote:

    Clinton instantly personalized the debate, saying that as a rich guy, he would benefit from the GOP's insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy. "You know how I feel," he told reporters. "I think people who benefit the most should pay the most--not for class-warfare reasons, but for reasons of fairness and rebuilding the middle class in America." He made the case right there, in one sentence.


    Parent
    Bill Clinton has consistently (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:20:07 PM EST
    stated for years that he is against tax cuts for the wealthy that would clearly benefit him. To attack him for being self-serving is disingenuous.

    Parent
    he said that during the presser (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:25:53 AM EST
    He made a point of saying he makes a lot of money now and the tax deal would benefit him personally and he wanted to disclose that. He then continued to say that's not why he was endorsing the deal and he didn't have a problem with him paying more taxes because he's now rich. He said from an objective viewpoint, the tax deal is in the best interest of all Americans.

    Parent
    He can't hurt it (none / 0) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    that's for sure. He also made a number of good points.

    Speaking of taking hostages.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:56:03 PM EST


    Smart move politically (none / 0) (#5)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    by Obama, bringing in the most popular pol in the party to give a personal endorsement, even if a nuanced, wonkish one, to a clumsily conceived compromise agreement that was infuriating his party's base and beginning to cause some serious political bleeding in the WH.  

    If O and his admin's spokespeople couldn't put out the fire -- and clearly they couldn't -- they needed to call in someone who at least had some credibility in economic matters and dealing with a difficult GOP.

    Nothing B Clinton can say (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:26:22 PM EST
    in support of this tax "deal" will redeem it in most people's eyes.  Just as majority saw thru the Repub attempt to impeach BC as political grandstanding on behavior that did not qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", the majority knows a crappy "deal" on taxes that, on its face shows the fickleness of the Pres and Repubs when they feign grave concern over deficits and shows that those who would ram this "deal" down our throats don't really care about the average person; the grant of extended unemployment benefits is the primary caret, but what about the 4 million long-term unemployed who are left out of the deal? And, why are we giving tax breaks to ultra wealthy on estates?  What does it say about us as a nation, and those who support this "deal", that the deal protects those who inherit estates worth up to $5 million from taxes, but leaves hard-core unemployed adrift, and saddles the nation with billions in otherwise avoidable additions to the deficit?

    Parent
    Personally, I've been on the fence (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:13:26 PM EST
    about this deal, and I have to say that BC's pretty firm endorsement does swing me just over the edge into the "pro" camp, albeit still very unenthusiastically and grumbling and muttering and cursing into my beer.

    He has credibility on this stuff with me, and I think he does with a fair number of other folks, as well.  If he thinks it's the best deal we can get and that the stimulative effect is significant and important, that does count for something.

    Thanks to Obama and the Dems screwing everything up, we're in a terrible position on this.  But given where we are right now, if BC thinks this is the best deal we can get, I have to take that seriously.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton only puts his reputation at stake for (none / 0) (#129)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:59:42 AM EST
    coming out in support of Obama's Republican tax plan.

    I'm very disappointed. And Bill has lost credibility.

    Parent

    Pretty much agreed (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    However, you know full well that a primary challenge will not be forthcoming. And if a serious one were, it would virtually guarantee turning over the White House to a Republican.

    And keeping the Presidency is not negotiable.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    Obama is virtually guaranteeing that the Presidency will be turned over to a Republican so what difference does it make?

    I will definitely agree that there will be no primary challenge if someone doesn't start within the next couple of months but in reality I think it's just going to be that Obama goes down in 2012.

    Parent

    I'd say Obama has a better than even (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    chance of being reelected.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    On the course he's continuing on he's looking like Carter II. I hope he can turn it around but I'm not seeing it. He's losing his base and independents and chasing the Republicans who will never vote for him.

    Parent
    Big diff-- (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20:40 PM EST
    The Republicans haven't got a credible candidate to run against him.  And we do have to remember that although we hate him, he's still perfectly OK in terms of polls for this point in his term.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:08:43 AM EST
    I don't hate him but I sure do hate his policies and his wimpiness.

    Parent
    Obama could possibly win w/ a better economy, but (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    BRILLIANTLY he's managed to set up, once again, a stimulus which is not strong enough to get the economy going, and it expires at the end of 2011.

    Leaving the election year for the economy to grind on and slow down. Brilliant, I tell you!

    For Republican strategists.

    Parent

    Still awful early to (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    predict.

    By this time in 1966, and throughout 1967, LBJ still looked to be the easy fave for renom and probably re-elect and serious pols like RFK didn't see how anyone could beat him.  Then in a few short months in early 1968 it all changed.

    Parent

    Voting for the lesser of two evils (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    was exactly what I thought I was voting for in 2008. Heck, it's almost always what I vote for.

    Obama has just barely fulfilled my expectations, and I expected to be disappointed.

    Justice Stevens got to retire. That's pretty much where my count is right now.

    Parent

    Friend sent me link to very good article (none / 0) (#64)
    by zyx on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    never would have found it otherwise

    In the Bitter New Washington
    December 23, 2010
    Elizabeth Drew

    Bernie Sanders got a half second (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 10:13:44 PM EST
    on the news tonight. But kids being too loud on the playground got a two minute video package.

    Go figure.

    Bernie's my senator (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:30:42 PM EST
    and I love him, but honestly, what he was doing today, heartfelt as I know it was, had less significance than the kids on the playground.  It was an extended and totally useless indulgence in his own personal frustration that accomplished nothing and convinced no one.  I wish he'd spent those hours doing something actually constructive.

    Parent
    It was a CSpan hit (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Madeline on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:37:57 AM EST
    and more that 4000 responded on Twitter as his aids were sending out responses.

    I thought it was great. I felt like someone was doing something.

    Parent

    The significance was in what he was saying (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:57:39 AM EST
    so many good sound bits to broadcast. But it also shows clearly what a sad state of affairs we are in. "he read from books" was what 'they' said . . . Just a lil' insert at the end of the Clinton story. Or wait, wasn't it a "side note" that 'they' called the inclusion in the broadcast of his work today, on behalf of the American people . . . yes, it think it was. See ABC/Diane S.

    Sorry, but I think he did do something constructive. He spoke truth to many issues for us. We should expect more of our elected folks, right up to the top, and he made that very clear.

    Thank your Sen for me for putting it on record ;)

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53:47 PM EST
    I mean, anyone who knows what the Senate normally does on Friday afternoons (nothing) knows that.

    Parent
    Party like it's 1999 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqYAbBFhzc

    SITE VIOLATOR!!! (none / 0) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 05:52:03 AM EST


    Can Bill Clinton Save Obama's Tax Cut Deal | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment