Obama takes on the '90s
By Steve Benen Wednesday Feb 06, 2008 5:13pm
In my personal experience, one of the more common points I hear from friends who support Hillary Clinton is that they want a return to the 1990s. The first Bush made a mess of things, and President Clinton got us back on track. The second Bush made an even bigger mess of things, so maybe another President Clinton can repeat the cycle.
I can think of a lot of compelling reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but this one’s never worked for me. The times are different, the challenges are different, and HRC brings different skills and qualities to the table than BC. I loved the ’90s, but it’s unrealistic to think another Clinton presidency will turn back the clock to a bygone era of peace and prosperity. Would that it could.
But if my conversations are any indication, HRC supporters are moved by the argument far more than I am. My hunch is the Obama campaign is conducting polls and focus groups that are finding the same thing.
As a result, Obama is making a provocative move: his campaign is starting to argue more forcefully that the ’90s could have been a lot better.
In what may be Obama’s most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton’s presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts “the Clintons” for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.
“8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation,” reads the mailer, which goes on to list the post-1992 losses suffered by Dems among governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives.
There’s nothing factually wrong with the mailing, but it’s a bold move anyway.
Greg has the images of the whole mailing, but the part that stands out reads:
8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation.
Governors (-12 Ds)
30 Dems after the 1992 election
18 Dems after the 2000 electionU.S. Senators (-7 Ds)
57 Dems after the 1992 election
50 Dems after the 2000 electionReps (-46 Ds)
258 Dems after the 1992 election
212 Dems after the 2000 election
I suspect the natural response would focus on criticizing Obama for criticizing the only two-term Democratic president of the last four decades. Bill Clinton is a party icon, the argument goes, so Obama’s party loyalties look shaky with criticism like this.
But notice, the Obama campaign mailing is going after Clinton from the left. After the Reagan and “party of ideas” flaps from a couple of weeks ago, this is a far more partisan message from Obama — if we want to help elect more Dems, the Clintons’ track record doesn’t offer much hope.
In this sense, the mailing seems to thread the needle carefully — criticizing the Dems’ #1 leader, but from an exclusively pro-Dem perspective. We’ll see if this works.
Login or Register to post comments.
meh, whaddaya expect from a cult leader?
I think Hillary would be better than the 90's.
nafta, china trade, bombing sudan, bombing serbia, the telecom bill, ignoring rwanda, ignoring east timor, illicit blowjobs in the whitehouse....
that a bad time!
IdahoMoe @ 2:
your an idiot
sorry
marko @ 4:
FU sorry
Bold move, indeed... it's time to take the gloves off. Obama is doing the right thing.
McCain beats Hillary
Obama beats McCain
any questions?
Is he going after FDR next?
Alas, you appear to be comparing past days to this one, and the temporal comparison fails. It is the condition that is important and that is not related to the time. What has changed? That we are in a war, yes. A fake war to control oil. There are no terrorists in a sovereign country. Our calling people that want us gone from their land terrorists does not make them so. Thus, there is no "new situation"
If you are banking on the status quo changing without wholesale slaughter, I would counsel you to consider that one more carefully. Each candidate is owned by their handlers. Best become a handler.
Liberal or Conservative let's not go backwards please. They gonna make us go back to Pong and 286 chip cpus? Jesus.
Cited over at FDL:
Looks a lot more like coverup than cleanup to me.
Obama's on the correct track taking on the Clinton '90s, because it wasn't good for the Democrats. And that led to W, not good for America.
Either of them will beat McCain.
Repeating Republican Talking Points means you are just as dumb.
not to mention the genocides that were allowed to continue under Bubba's watch:
800 000 dead in rwanda, tens of thousands dead in Bosnia...
Prairie Sunshine @ 10:
Clinton had high approval ratings leaving office and Gore chose not to campaign with him..Gore also chose Lieberman, and Bush cheated too.
IdahoMoe @ 5:
You two need to find common ground. Here, I'll get you started. You're both grammatically retarded bad spellers with lazy punctuation issues.
Now you can be mad at the anal smartass together.
I'm a uniter...
[LMAO, but I've got to ask you guys to keep it civil. Keep it where it is and I won't start deleting any of you. Funny, P2bH!. Site Monitor]
Funny, we know have Democrats attacking the last successful Democrat Presidency. His approval ratings his last year were in the 70s. Let's not forget that Gore won the election in 2000, showing that people wanted the continuance of Clinton's policies.
Clinton only looks great in the rearview mirror because W has us driving off the cliff.
Its smart of Obama and highlights two (in my view) fatal flaws: (1)Clinton supporters fail to relize the inherent inconsistency of propping up the 90's while saying Hillary is her own person, etc; and, more importantly, (2)it goes right to Obama's 'unity' platform by pointing out obvious -- the Clintons polarize. Whether the move pays off, I don't know, but it goes so well with the whole message he is slinging that its frankly a little overdue.
I know one thing I'm pretty sure about. This mailer is going to make Bill hot under the collar and the last time that Obama said something that pissed off bill, bill opened his mouth too loud and made some big mistakes for his wife's campaign.
Proud2bHumble @ 14:
U R Phunnee!
I think what Barack Obama he is doing is fair. I'm a Democrat, voted as one in the last 4 presidential elections, and have wondered what happened to everyone's memory regarding the first Clinton administration.
I switched from leaning towards voting for Hillary to Obama after watching Bill C wave his finger at us all and sneer about the legitimacy of Barack Obama's campaign. Is is memory that short? I expect Republicans to behave like the closet case, draft dodging, self righteous pigs that they are (yeah, that felt good to say it) but Bills red faced, contemptuous lecture to America killed it for me. Apologize for Pardoning Marc Rich, among other things, Dude, and maybe you'll get your dignity back.
More Rovian tactics from the Obama campaign? Who could have seen that coming?
I voted for Barack in the California primary, but I think it would be a mistake to go after Hillary on this point. She came off rather sympathetically during the impeachment proceedings.
kindness @ 11:
I assume you were directing that at me, so here's some reading for you...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Obama beats McCain... Clinton doesn't.
I am sick of obama worship and clinton bashing. I'm uncomfortable with obama's message of reaching across the aisle. But I don't bash him to everyone around me like obama supporters are bashing clinton to me. I can't count the number of emails I've received from obama supporters with repulsive jokes about Hillary and/or Bill. These are the people that want to "reach across the aisle"?!
Kind of a stupid move. Obama is already strong with kids too young to know the 90's... but people who do know them aren't exactly full of terrible memories. So what's he trying to accomplish?
kindness @ 11:
Don't be so certain. A lot of things will change before November, and McCain will be campaigning as the presumptive nominee far before the Dem nomination is even a little certain. Democrats don't need a perfect storm to fuck up anything.
I loved the ’90s, but it’s unrealistic to think another Clinton presidency will turn back the clock to a bygone era of peace and prosperity.
I don't think the people of Kosovo, Yugoslavia, or any of the countries that we take advantage of via NAFTA and the WTO are as anxious to turn back the clock.
dumb move,
even if he is partially right... it is a dumb move.
Allot of Obama supporters are Bill Clinton fans and attacking Bill's years may push away Bill Clinton fans who are supporting Obama.
Not everyone rembembers the numbers and the stats, but everyone remembers that Bill's years were infinitaley better the Dubya's
dumb devisive move
IdahoMoe @ 19:
U R Phunnee!
Mainly with the hip-hop community, evidently. Here's lookin' out! You be crunk yo'sef...
I'll take three 30's for one of your 90's. We should have plenty of Hoovertowns by the time November rolls around.
Obama went over the line on this one. I came into the Democratic party because of Bill Clinton. He moved the party center left. After Obama's attack on Hillary's Health Care Plan (the Republicans only have to show his ad when she tries to get universal health care) and his attack on Bill Clinton, Obama can no longer brag that he gets her votes if her wins but she doesn't get his. I will not vote for him. I do not think McCain will put Alito-type judges on the Supreme Court and with a Dem House and Senate he is not so scary. The bottom line in the general election is who can be Commander-in-Chief. Hillary has positioned herself to run in the general election. Obama has positioned himself as a liberal Democrat and plays to the base. And don't tell me he gets the youth vote. She took the youth vote in California and New Jersey. And his argument that he won so many states doesn't hold water when she didn't put her money in the caucus states - only the primary states.
DY @ 21:
how is a substantive counter to what is indisputably something her supporters (and campaign staffers) point out to undecided voters Rovian? Now, if his mailer said something like "Bill's thirst for the perfect bj caused the party to lose seats," you know, that would be Rovian.
The 90's were a different era and did not have the stench of GOP corruption, pedophilia, gay prostitute sex, embezzlement, graft, kickbacks, war-mongering, and 7,000 American dead (9/11 and Iraq) etc... as we do now. Conservatives have majorly fucked up and simply do not have the credibility they once had.
I actually know a lot of people who were turned off by his Reagan remarks AND his disses Clinton in the same breathe. I would have to say this may sound too arrogant for some of us.
The 90's only had 1 real great thing, the Economy and Tech Boom.
Other than that Bill Clinton had NAFTA, welfare reform, school uniforms and tipper gore music police, the rise of Walmart and China(specifically brokered by the clintons), Sex scandals (yes some were fake, but some were real), attacks on our embassy's in africa and we never got OBL.... and on and on and on... I could go on for hours. And I'm not even a dido head.
There is plenty of ammo there for Barack, all kinds of corporate kiss ass Clinton stories to tell.
OMG, Tom Delay is on hardball tonight. You guys gotta get a clip of it. He has totally lost it. He says there is no proof that climate change is man-made. He looks different too. Not as made up and shiny as usual.
There is something to be said for the skill/results of BO's campaign to this point, though. Doesn't bode well for the recontards regardless of the tickets, hopefully.
Eric @ 26:
Eric gets a gold star.
Personally, I believe if you go over the policy decisions of the Clinton Administration, you'd find most of the best decisions can be attributed to Gore, and most of the worst decisions to Bill himself:
Gore: Pushed for opening up "the Internet" for public use, which created a technology explosion and employment boom.
Gore: Pushed for greater environmental standards, which pushed GM into buildingthe most advanced electric car on the planet, and the eliminations of CFC's that closed the hole in the ozone layer (yes, it's gone.)
BC: Approved NAFTA.
BC: Telecommunications deregulation.
There's plenty more. With Hillary, we run the risk of getting the worse of Bill with none of the counter benefit of having a Gore.
...though, if she picks Richardson as her VP, he could be her Gore, and make her worth considering.
(PS: I'm not an Obama fan, either.)
john @ 12:
myiq2xu @ 7:
Not to mention the million or more Iraqis due to daily bombings, and stupid sanctions that hurt nobody but the poor.
Ah, the 90's. Dot coms -- they started their well-deserved and inevitable unravelling in 1999. Venture capital gone wild. Financial analysts on TV pitching stocks they privately knew would tank. Big accounting firms/consultancies. Warnings by Arthur Levitt unheeded.
Kids fresh out of college getting signing bonuses of BMWs. Aeron chairs for everyone! I know someone in Atlanta who made a load of money buying up those Aeron chairs at about $.10 on the dollar from the warehouses they wound up in when the dot coms died. Matter of fact, a bunch of them wound up right here in our offices.
The glory days. What a laugh. I hope Obama crams this down their throats.
Democrats attacking Democrats.
Sweet thinking after McCain starts his General Election campaign tomorrow.
The Democratic Party: Always finding a way to lose.
Go back to the 1990's? Are Hillary supporters regressives like the neocons? Good gawd. I hope not. Can we please go forward!!!!
Hillary is not Bill. The sooner we can all figure that out and look at her and her record and her positions (no, she wasn't ever president,) the sooner we can make educated decisions about whom to support. So far I've seen Hillary duck out on efforts to get us out of Iraq, and all I've heard from Barack is platitudes. I'm looking to the near future, not a return to the 90's.
Apphouse50 @ 41:
I made over $10/hour less in the 90s. Oh ya, they were wonderful regardless where you lived. NOT.
John West @ 44:
This is why on Sunday here in Maine, I'll be voting for Kucinich and will then cast my second vote as 'uncommitted'. Obama is better than Hillary by far in my opinion, but I'm still on the fence about what to do when the election comes around. I might sit it out. :-(
At this critical point in our history, some call it the equivalent to the fall of the Roman Empire, we need RENAISSANCE more than restoration. Go OBAMA.
Because I probably won't be on the computer later tonight when there is an open thread, I just gotta tell you this. Tonight on Hardball Chris asked DeLay if his vote alone would keep Hillary and Bill out of the white house again, who would he vote for, Hillary or McCain. DeLay said he couldn't answer that now because he wasn't sure which of the two candidates would be more harmful to the country.
First he speaks favorably about Reagan, then he bashes a popular 2-term Democratic President (the only one to win 2 terms since FDR) by blaming him for a lot of things Clinton had no control over.
I was there in the 90's, and the way I recall it there were lots of Democrats that ran away from (or against) the Clintons. There were also a few scandals among Congressional Democrats.
Meanwhile, the GOP was ascendant with its fundraising, candidate recruitment, organization, and propaganda operation.
What did the Clintons do during that time? They won, twice. In 1998, the final mid-term election of the Clinton administration, Democrats defied history and gained seats in Congress.
Bill Clinton left office with the country at peace and the economy in great shape. His approval ratings were high, and we actually had a budget surplus.
Yeah, let's bash that.
The 90's were the days of financial excess and outsourcing gone wild, NAFTA opened up "free markets" and American jobs have disappeared ever since. That was on Sweet Willie's watch.
On a related note, a co-worker said he wants Hillary as Pres. and its because of how well he had it in the 1990's. And I'm sure others feel the same. Bill behind Hilary is not my idea of a dynamic duo. Could you imagine the friction between Bill and any Vice President? Bill wouldnt play second fiddle to anyone and would start meddling, and the speculation by the media will be the greatest distraction of all time. Thats another issue, though, the media likely will be complicit with whatever administration takes over from Bush, they are now experts
This is sad that we are fracturing apart just like they want and some have predicted, but i have to admit if Hillary gets the nod I'm probably staying home.
....in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/hill ary-vs-obam.html
12/09/2006
IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
“What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs,” the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html
The Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, David A. Harris, puts to the lie the nasty bit of propaganda by US “Left” Zionists who downplay the role of the Jewish Lobby in securing whole-hearted US White House and Congressional support for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. . . . “In the recent conflict with Hezbollah, once again the United States demonstrated its willingness to stand by Israel, provide vital support and withstand the pressure of many US allies who would have wished for an earlier end to the fighting even if it meant keeping Hezbollah largely intact and in place . . . Whatever the primary factor, there can be no doubt that American Jewry is an essential element of the equation (yoking the US to Israel). This is all the more reason why American Jewry need to work day in and day out to ensure that the mutually beneficial link [sic] goes from strength to strength.” (Jerusalem Post, August 25, 2006)
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm
Obama's South Carolina victory speech:
“We’re up against the belief that it’s all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore.”
Bin Bin @ 32:
It's classic Rove- Going for an opponents supposed strength, and turning it into a weakness. Remember the purple heart bandaids?
What is the point of using this tactic? He is running against Hillary, not Bill. Bill isn't being any more abrasive than Michelle (who shuffled and dealt the race cards in the first place) and yet BO chooses to go Rove with those he can't convince to drink the kool aid.
I frequently come across those idealist who completely dismiss the total control of the Mainstream Media during the 90”s which the Clintons had to battle. And as Steven Benen said these times, today are different, he is right but totally lost focus.
Not simply a little different. Like a lot of young men like Steve grew up in time of change like no other in history, only Steve stays in denial like a lot of other young men and women that during this changing period the Clinton’s and their administration brought together one of the most uniting forces in the history of social advancement. I know I lived it. It’s called the Internet.
Applying and implementing the Internet in American Education that quickly expanded into Commerce, and personal computing created the single most important advancement in communication, education and just plain social interaction by the use of the Internet. It is profound and inconceivable that anyone could dismiss this simple action from a political like Clinton of vision that developed a tool that made a leap to unbounded resources for everyone on the planet. To me it pays off for any short comings one might consider.
But, one must be a hard core Republican that would refute this premise. Actually this is just one of the few important social issues the Republicans hate to admit are good deeds of a Democratic Presidential leadership of the Clinton Administration.
Wildly Claiming Clinton a liar for sexual practices is the only real space oddity the Republicans have, because, to top a creation like this would have the Republicans try to discover how to manipulate Gravity, or understand the gravitas principles to benefit America’s energy problem. Rather than Cheney’s bank account. The Clintons are in the process of doing just that, however, everyone is included in the discovery of the principles of this gravitas and would likely need the use of the Internet anyway?
noparty @ 27:
For the most part the Balkans were their (Yugoslavia) own doing, if anything NATO and the UN intervened way too late.
I was deployed in Mostar, and I get quite a kick seeing Yugoslavians playing the victim card now.
Clinton ended AFDC and introduced TANF with time limits, work mandates etc. it did not reduce of elleviate poverty, only grew the working poor. The gap between the top and bottom by income and by wealth continued to expand under clinton. Clinton restricted Habeas Corpus, Clinton continued the pointless war on drugs, introduced the $ 1.6 billion Plan Columbia, NAFTA has been a disaster, Clinton didn't sign Kyoto accords, Clinton put 100,000 more cops on the street. Clinton = Less freedom, Less Equality, Less Democracy, Less Solidarity. Both the Democrats and Republicans are right-wing parties.
myiq2xu @ 7:
No, and thankfully there isn't any legitimate comparison.
The 90's will go down as one of the most prosperous, pleasant decades of the 20th century.
Yall need to zip it.
go bama @ 51:
Are you taking your toys with you too? You're right, 6 months of McInsane Sundowner and 3.5 years of his running mate'll show us.
Prairie Sunshine @ 10:
amen
myiq2xu @ 49:
His remarks about Reagan were about Reagan's ability to change politics. Not that the changes were good. Your inability to understand even slightly complicated reasoning is exactly why politicians talk down to people. Thanks :/
Ahhh forget the nineties...There were some nice years yea... but some crappy ones too after the misfits from freeper land got hold of congress in 94.. In any case it's all rearview mirror stuff with no relevance to the here and now.. That seems to me to be like someone from the sixties pining for the fifties or someone from the fourties pining for the thirties... Yea.. It all could'a been better but...
Besides, I thought Obama was the vision of the future, not some nostalgia review.. IF the Obama people want to go that route, focus on the last seven years at least... THAT SHIT coulda shoulda been a WHOLE lot better... The pair of yas, Obama and Hillary just need to lighten up on each other and just tells us the straight, no bullshit, story on what the hell you're gonna do to fix the shitty situation the repubs are leaving us with... Which ever one of you has the better plan for that will win... period. Mudslinging, no batter how oblique or subtle ain't gonna get it this time...
So, just skip the GOP style bullshit... It's fucking old and I'm tired of it. We ain't none of us ever going back to the nineties... We and you candidates need to focus on the here and now, and figure out what needs done to get us to a better future than the shit sandwich Bush is leaving everyone to munch on.....JD
souljaEXVOTO @ 47:
Him, if I have my time line correct, the middle ages happened between the fall of the roman empire and the Renaissance.
Anyhow, I would take Obama seriously about framing the 90s in their correct context, hadn't he said all that BS about his manlove for all things Reagan and the 80s. I frankly think that I can't trust his historical memory. Afterall he saw the shitty 80s as the reaction to the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s.
Frankly I don't trust either Obama and Hillary as far as I can throw both of them. And since this election is going to come to either of them vs. McCain, I am less than thrilled.
Chris @ 58:
If Bill or Monica had kept it zipped, we might've been looking back on the last seven years with more fondness as well.
Clinton was a "pretty good" president, but not a great president by any means. He gave us NAFTA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. For the record, I voted for him twice. However, Obama's mailer is accurate. Additionally, one could counter the Clinton claim that "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take another Clinton to clean up after the 2nd Bush," with "if it hadn't been for Clinton, we wouldn't have had a second Bush." It was Bill Clinton's "transgression" and "pardongate" that kept Gore from winning in a landslide.
I've always liked the Clintons, but I am sick to death of both of them and all of their crap/baggage. If they would go away for a while (or back to the Senate in Hillary's case), I might like them again.
Proud2bHumble @ 64:
Exactamundo!
Chris @ 58:
Ya very prosperous until the accountants got caught. Oh ya, and it was realized that the books were all cooked. But other than that, they were great.
Lori @ 66:
Gesundheit, and gracias.
Mr. Anon @ 61:
Actually he never made a qualification of the change being either good or bad. And I guess the reason was for plausible denial. And as you have shown, playing the apologist card to a T, that is the reason why politicians made their comments as ambiguous as possible.
So before lecturing someone else, lets assume that Mr. Obama is old enough to say whether those changes were good or bad. Since he left that up in the air, we take his comments for what they really were: wanting to pander to the right (have his cake), while making it as if he was just making a simple observation as to not piss the liberals (eat the cake too).
His comments make perfect sense in the correct context that ideologically both Obama and Hillary would be considered moderate conservatives elsewhere. For a true liberal (in the political context of a left wing) to consider Reagan worth of discussion without any sort qualification on the nature of the observations would have been unthinkable. Alas, most people in this country are in deep denial about the fact, that when it comes down to it there is simply no left wing in the political system.
what a silly fool i am...here i actually thought this post was going to make that turn that sometimes happens on c & l...you know the one where it starts out saying how great the 90s were with the Clintons and then goes on to say...if you were rich and white. silly fool that i am.
The gap between the haves and have-nots greatly expanded under Clinton's watch and millions of children were left in the dust by his groundbreaking "welfare reform" (read: discontinuation). That's how Edwards would have gone after Bill and HRC...but Obama, no, he uses a much more standard line of attack (one that is impossible to prove or disprove, I might add)...one pulled right out of the Rovian playbook...an attack based on fear.
Nowhere in the post is there even a hint that returning to the glory years of BC would be bad for the poor. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying Bush has been better for the poor than Bill, I'm just saying that Bill was no better for the poor than Bush...No other president can claim to have ended Welfare--only BC can lay claim to that.
Proud2bHumble @ 64:
Mostly, I blame Bill. He knew that girl couldn't keep her mouth shut.
Productconsumer @ 35:
You summed that up well. Let me add. . . travelgate, White House sleepovers for money, and the endless list of sleezeball donors and friends. God help us if we have to go back there.
P.S. Remembering the past is great. Living in the past is sad. Because it means there is no future.
ConcernedCanuck @ 40:
Thanks for mentioning Iraq, something Clinton actually did rather than ignore. All reasons why he will enjoy his place in hell along with Raygun, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
Hurin @ 57:
Really?
When FDR took office, we were at peace, when he died we were in the biggest war in our nations history.
He increased taxes, tried to pack the Supreme Court, interned Japanese-Americans in camps, refused to admit Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, turned his back on the civil rights movement, and dramatically increased the size of the federal government.
He also broke a tradition going back to George Washington and ran for more than two terms, which motivated the passage of a constitutional amendment to prevent its recurrance.
Is anything I just said "factually incorrect?"
kindness @ 11:
OK, I'll play the village idiot. How can Hillary beat McCain when elections are decided by "Reagan Democrats" and moderates. Only McCain and Obama compete with this group. I'll gladly admit that Hillary would be a runaway favorite against the Huckster or Romney but that just isn't going to be the case. Hillary won one actual red state on Tuesday and a few purple ones. The fluke was Oklahoma. Obama won several violently red ones including Mittins back yard in Utah. Doesn't that tell you anything about who the "Reagan Democrats", moderates, and Independents would be willing to vote for in November?
Proud2bHumble @ 59:
Look there is no choice either way we continue down the crapper on a wave of money grubbing, hate mongering (check self),
and war profiteering.
Mr. Anon @ 61:
Why do Obama supporters respond to criticism of Obama with personal attacks?
Maybe the 90's would have been better if the government would have done a little more to prevent hundreds of thousands of American workers from losing their pensions, or the gutting of our once-great industrial sector, or the mass exodus of jobs (and money) to Mexico and China. I certainly don't expect former Wal-mart board member HRC to remedy any of that.
Proud2bHumble @ 64:
Actually if Bill would have been less of a political animal and simply state how that was a matter between him and his wife. and if Gore would have had any sort of spine to run on the strengths of his 8 previous yrs in the Whitehouse, rather than running away from them. I am sure we would have experienced a much different start to the XXI century.
It would be simple to assume it all came down to a blow job. Alas, the situation... or clusterfuck is far more complex than that. And the Dems in some sense are responsible, albeit not in the same degree as the GOP, for the shit hole in which we currently find our collective derrières.
The main thing is that compared to the recession in the early 90s, the economic downturn of the 80s, and the clusterfuck that have been the 00s thus far... sure the 90s look great. But taken in the correct context, you can analyze most of Clinton's policies during his tenure, and you may see that plenty of them fall to the right of Nixon's. And most people seem to miss how much to the right Reagan and Bush were able to turn the political discourse in this country.
Since the Dems are in no hurry to get back to their liberal days, and the GOP sure as fuck are not going back to their late XIX century political status... we are as they say, up the shit creek without a paddle for the foreseeable future.
marko @ 4:
Why don't you go vote with the republicans, I hear they're missing their idiot.
Turn on your own, huh?
Obama's dissing his own freakin party and ignoring BUSH BUSH BUSH
ASK YOURSELF WHY THE MEDIA IS PUSHING FOR OBAMA?
Hasn't BUSH taught you ANYthing?
joe @ 15:
That's not a viable argument. Bush's approval ratings were "sky high" for at least half of his term, even though he was absolutely disasterous from day one.
Al Gore did, in fact, win the election but such a small amount that it hinged on Florida and the Republicans were able to steal it out from under him. If he had won in a landslide -- and he would have it not for Bill Clinton -- Florida wouldn't have been relevant. Bottom line . . . Republicans stole the election with the help of the Supreme Court but Bill Clinton gave them the ammo to do it.
Proud2bHumble @ 64:
The Big Dog left office with high approval ratings. Gore screwed up by listening to the Village Idiots and running away from Bill, and by picking one of Bill's biggest critics as his VP.
In spite of all that, Gore got a million more votes than G-Dub and would have won the election if SCOTUS hadn't interfered and stopped the vote counting in Florida.
WHY did Obama not voice his dissent on the Iraq Vote BEFORE the vote, but gave his speech 15 days AFTER the vote?
Feingold was the hero here, not Obama.
Anyways, obama's voting record is identical to clinton's, and he sought her out after he won his first senate term (which he's still in) for mentoring.
This is "just politics" but C'MON obamabots...turning on your own is WRONG, and bushlite!
Obama has no clue.
All he can do is attack Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is a different person with different skills than Bill Clinton.
She is right to point out that the Clinton administration improved the lives of most Americans.
But she has never claimed that she wants to return to another decade.
It is a straw man to talk about what some supporters of Senator Clinton have allegedly said, and then proceed to
destroy that argument.
Obama should spend his time talking about the horrors of the George W. Bush administration and about what he proposes to do about it.
He doesn't.
He is too ambitious for power.
All he can do is focus his attention on phony issues and be an attack dog for the corporations who has so generously donated to his campaign.
Leigh @ 81:
You're going to rationalize tearing down one of your own?
Despicable!
The ONLY reason Al Gore ran away from Clinton was because so many people were so disgusted with his behavior. Gore may have made the wrong decision by not allowing Clinton to campaign for him, but he never would have been in that position had it not been for Bill Clinton and his wayward penis. (disclaimer: frankly I don't give a crap if Bill has sex outside his marriage as long as it's consentual, that's Hillary's problem. But I care VERY MUCH when it reflects badly on our party).
Obama's a republican!
It's a generalization, but people who are conservative tend to look towards the past to find great things to renew. People who are 'liberally' minded and progressive tend to think that everything needs to be improved upon, no matter how good it was. That's kinda how progress happens.
How are Hillary backers saying anything about "turning on your own is WRONG, and bushlite!"?
Josh @ 87:
If that's true, I'm switching parties.
Lori @ 86:
Who were these "so many people?" The Big Dog had an approval rating around 70%, which means those "so many people" were basically the hard-core GOP.
The GOP Noise Machine and the Village Idiots said everyone was disgusted with Bill, but that was a lie.
I find this argument against Hillary a bit sexist, for it assumes that HC is going to be like BC. Why? Is she not her own person?
Reasons to vote AGAINST Obama:
1. He voted FOR GW's energy bill giving huge benefits to oil, coal, and nuke companies. Why? Perhaps because Exelon Corp has donated a quarter million dollars to his campaigns--go see what they do for a living: http://www.exeloncorp.com/ourcompanies/powergen/nuclear/
2. He supported his mentor, JOE LIEBERMAN against Ned Lamont in the CT primary. Read all about it: http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_ralli...
3. He's voted to fund the Iraq occupation EVERY SINGLE TIME he's had the chance, yet claims he's against the war. He was not a senator for the first vote, how do we know how he would have voted?
4. He refused John Kerry's request to help filibuster Alito, virtually guaranteeing the appointment. Here it is in black and white: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/01/ana06006.html
5. Go back and watch what he actually said about Ronald Reagan--it's enough to make you sick
What excesses of the 60s and 70s, Barack? You mean civil rights? Environmental protections? Women's movement? You mean the excesses of the 80s were less? Were you even paying attention?! Here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA
6. Still not convinced? How about his love of Rumsfeld and other GW nominees? Here we go: http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10343
Let's make it a top 10 list, please add 7-10.
Josh @ 87:
So, it's come to this.
I am sorry Senator Obama's taking this route. Essentially - he is telling voter's that Democrats have just as bad a record as Republicans. If that’s true - then why vote for them? Wouldn't it be smart to remind people that America thrived those times Democrats held the White House?
Once again Senator Obama puts his own ambition first (the same goes for Clinton). I still say I will vote for whomsoever the Democratic nominee is. But two or three more months of this and my vote (or yours) won't matter. The Democratic Party will have disgusted everyone, and once again snatched defeat from out the jaws of victory.
go bama @ 76:
There is a choice. Put the pedal to the metal and go over the cliff, or try to slow this thing down however we can in hopes that we can go in another direction. I agree with you completely re the direction we're going, but this started a long time ago, and the wealthy Machiavellian oligarchy is powerful and deeply entrenched with tentacles of influence everywhere. Without a French-style revolution, it's going to be a long struggle. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day.
P.S. Not really mongering here, just disagreeing in my usual sarcastic style with leaving the battle in a snit cause my guy didn't get to be Supreme Commander. Or is that the same thing to you?
The Fat Lady Sings @ 93:
Bravo, your post is brilliant.
myiq2xu @ 91:
Gee, I think the "village idiots" are the people who still loved him after he f*cked Monica with a cigar in the oval office. No, that's not too embarrassing for the country. Let's go back there. God knows there are still plenty of interns to be had!
Stupid move again by the rookie.
He should accept all 4 debates and debate McInsane's positions to let the people see who can win the general.
Debating the 90's is ridiculous.
myiq2xu @ 74:
Well, the facts are indeed correct. However, without context... you can make FDR be something that he wasn't.
He increased taxes, sure. He actually increased taxes on the top earners mostly. Plus there were these little things called the "great depression" and "WWII" going on, which I assume you would have weathered with lower taxes and good wishes, right? Afterall, Hoover did such a fantastic job implementing the libertarian playbook to a T.
He increased the size of the federal government in order to implement a massive public works programme, which to this day is taught all over the world. It put people to work, and for the most part in put in place a significant amount of the infrastructure that allowed America to fight a World War in two concurrent fronts, and support the 40s and 50s industrial throughput surge. Infrastructure that has been languished for the better part of 4 decades due to the GOP strategy of low taxes. Indeed, according to the GOP, I assume that roads and sanitation only need pixie dust to operate. Right?
And sure he ran for 3 terms. The GOP really thought that the best way of running a campaign against a successful and loved president, who had saved the country from the ruin brought by the very own GOP's policies, and who was kicking all sorts of nazi and Japanese asses, was to... tadaaaaahhhh: run innuendo and smear campaigns regarding the sexuality of the first lady. Indeed restoring honor and dignity GOP style. Thankfully for the GOP, they managed to devolve this country to the point that the nazi apprentice of Bush Jr. was able to use that playbook and win 5 decades later.
In any case, there is not a single conservative president that can come close to FDR. Period, no matter how much twisting and spinning some conservatives would love to believe...
Megan @ 98:
Yep.
[Deleted. First, when you post a comment with more than 5 links, it goes to the spam filter. It was found there and posted promptly thereafter. Second, don't post the same comment on multiple threads, please. This is considered spamming. Advise that you pick your spot carefully when you post. Thank you. Site Monitor]
Proud2bHumble @ 95:
"Freedom's got an A.K."
People say that they don't like Hillary.
They say she is a triangulator.
If she is the nominee they won't vote for her.
That's the way I feel about Obama.
I don't like him.
He is on both sides of about every issue.
If he is the nominee, I will vote third party or not at all.
Jon Peters @ 102:
Is this DLC Haiku?
It just blows me away at how many progressives and dems whine and cry if their guy/gal doesn't make it. So many posts from dems saying, if so and so doesn't make it I'll sit out. Repugs will pull together and rally around McBain, while dems will splinter apart like they usally do. Wake up people before its to late. People are dying everyday in Irag while some dems and progressives whine, bcause Dennis or Edwards didn't make it. We progressives and dems seem to be a sorry lot.
Hey, what the heck, wasn't it Bill Clinton who gave us NAFTA? Didn't that directly result in the loss of many, many American jobs? And aren't there even more plans in the works similar to that?
Yeah, Clinton was more financially responsible than our current President, but the more I read, the less I respect the Clintons.
And that was before the electioneering started.
I am all but certain that Hillary would continue the work of Bill Clinton leading us to a new world order system without regard for individual American rights.
Voters should ask Hillary the hard questions:
1. Does she support NAFTA?
2. Does she support the combining of Mexico, Canada and the US into one big country similar to the European Union? If so, we would have to give up rights we have according to our constitution.
3. Does Hillary believe in open borders?
Well he certainly is the first left-of-center candidate who claims that he gets votes from Republicans. What a joke.
Obama is reminding millions of Americans who well they did during the Clinton years. Now he is getting a little to full of himself. As Obama's attorney is now named in the Renzo indictment Obama should be very careful as some of his secrets might come out. Now I know John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are directing him but sometimes when you attack a good person people push back. I wonder do the people of New Orleans remember it was President Clinton who helped in their hour of need, Obama a Senator and Black sit back and watched it on TV. Now he wants their vote because his color is dark. At lease Obama has no platform to stand for himself, only the words Change. What's more scary is Senator Obama spending time working with Connie Rice on the problem in Africa, will he use the White House for Africa's problems and not the USA. I know Kerry will use the inexperienced Senator to his advantage as will Ted Kennedy. Look Obama's attorney used him in a corruption scam and others will do the same.
Uh oh. It looks like Obama is not a Republican after all. He won't "play dirty" with the Clinton's by bringing up all their skeletons.
Obama was interviewed on Wednesday in Washington for a 60 Minutes report to be broadcast on Sunday, Feb. 10, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Asked by Kroft if he will be able to endure attacks from "swift-boating" Republicans who may use his race or his youthful drug use against him, Obama replies, "Whoever wins this Democratic primary...they're the toughest, baddest candidate on the block. And if I beat Senator Clinton, then I will be more than capable of beating the Republicans. And if I don't, then she'll be the nominee and [race or past drug use] will be a moot point."
But the senator from Illinois vowed not to use such tactics himself to beat Hillary Clinton. Kroft's question on whether he would pull out any "Clinton skeletons" prompted Obama to say, "We don't play that. I mean, one of the rules that I laid down very early in this campaign was that we will be fierce competitors but we will have some ground rules. And one of the ground rules for me is that we battle on policy differences, and that if we draw a contrast between Senator Clinton and myself, then it is based on fact," he tells Kroft.
Then Obama promises, "We're not going to fabricate things. We're not going to try to distort or twist her positions."
Josh @ 83:
You ran off earlier and never answered my question and now you are posting the same thing once again. So, I'll ask again. Are you going to vote Republican if Obama gets the nomination? You obviously hate the man, and are a complete Hillbot, so was wondering. Most Hillary supporters accuse Obama supporters of "takin' their ball and runnin' home if she gets the nom", so is that the case with you Josh? You sure spout alot of hatred for him. Voting Repub?
myiq2xu @ 82:
Agreed. I've always thought Gore not using Bill was the major fuck-up of his run. Hard to believe being married to Tipper 'ohmygodthoselyricsareobscene' wouldn't affect his judgment a little. Was mainly smartassing about the sperm ejector + JAP collector, but with things turning out as close as they did, it probably motivated a few extra evangitards in Fla. and the South to get things close enuf for shrub to steal it. Agree there were bigger factors at play, but Monica blew it at least a little... ha ha
Tyler Durden @ 99:
My point is that Obama's ad is without context, and he is attacking another Democrat.
Why doesn't he try attacking Republicans for a change?
diamondmc @ 104:
A lot of the "crying" is about the fact that mass murder is being done in the name of the United Statesand true voice against yhe industrial military complex has long since been squashed.
this may backfire on obama
this literature puts party over country
what obama needs to show, is that we cannot return to the 90s, thanks to the new economy we face as a result of bill's triangulation
we dont make anything here anymore
we are a service economy....
we need to bring back manufacturing jobs...or else we are doomed
who cares if you can buy a 100 dollar tv if you cant afford the rent payment
go bama @ 113:
You maybe right, I don't disagree, but that is not the type of crying and whinning I see on this or other posts.
Gotta go, check back later.
"Last word, freak." - Melvin Udall
out
I agree that the 90's could have been better but even with the mistakes made during those years, like Nafta, they look like utopia compared to the past 7+ and the state of our nation now. If Hillary is elected SHE will be the president, not Bill. She should put him to good use restoring our reputation and respect around the world which he would be masterful at and keep him a long way away from the White House. She's very smart and I'm sure learned from the mistakes of the past like we all have.
My first choice was Edwards because I saw and liked a real progressive but I always kinda secretly hoped Al Gore would hear the call of the Founders and get the fire in his belly but that was not to be. I will vote for the Democrat in Nov just because it is my civic duty to rid the White House of these criminals and defeat that knuckle-dragging party.
The '90s??? The '90s??????
We're heading for a repeat of the '30s...Great Depression and all.
I remember seeing help wanted signs everywhere during the 90s. Heaven forbid we should ever want that again.
Obama’s on the correct track taking on the Clinton ’90s, because it wasn’t good for the Democrats. And that led to W, not good for America.
Lots of this kind of talk in here but let me ask those saying it: Do you believe it? The problems the Democrats had in the 90's had nothing to do with Clinton. They were the result of an onslaught of Gingrich BS. It eventually destroyed Newt..Clinton is no worse for the wear. IF you give the "return to the 90's " concert a thought ( and allow the folks reflecting on it to form their own reasons)..you will see it clearly means a return to a satisfied America. Clinton did that despite enourmous obstacles laid by the GOP. Obama, Hilary and any Democrat with a bright future today owes a lot to Bill as he's the guy that created the Democratic brand America longs for. People want that time back.
It is silly to suggest the 90's were bad just to accommodate a political ploy by Obama. We are not that stupid and the 90's were not that long ago. It should also be noted that revisionism is a standard ploy of the disingenuous and not found in the tool bags of those messaging from a foundation of hope and change. It is very GOP and very same ole' same ole'.
I don't think the ad is saying the 90s could have been better in the way you are implying.
I think Bill Clinton made the country better in his 8 years, but I think its absolutely fair to say he left the Democratic Party in worse shape than it was when he came in, and its fair to say Bill's personal actions cost Al Gore a valuable supporter and pave the way for Bush.
I AM NOT BLAMING CLINTON FOR BUSH - I am not even condoning the witch hunt over a stained dress - I am saying Bill's actions gave the Republicans valuable ammunition that even a dullard like Bush could win on vague promises of restoring dignity to the White House, and made him a liability for Gore and Democrats throughout the nation.
its fair for Barack to make the claim he'd leave the party in better shape than it was coming in - if he actually bashes Clintons actual acheivements I will gladly say he's biting off more than he can chew.
Buzz @ 119:
Instead we have just as many people out of work and no help wanted signs.
I think we should vote for HIllary Clinton because OBAMA WOULD BE A DISASTER for this country. Look how he has divided it already pitting black against white, so he could win and then trying to blame the Clintons. He is sneaky, underhanded a the worst person we could have.
This is total BS. Yes the 90's could have been better, there could have been even greater accomplishments during his terms. There is one main reason for this didn't happen. The 1992 Democratically controlled Congress. They didn't cooperate with Clinton because he was an "outsider". He wasn't a member of Congress or a former member of Congress, so they didn't trust him and didn't support him. They were cowardly when important proposals came from the administration, they let the Republicans set the agenda. Their behavior turned the 1992 election into a debacle. Clinton was left with a hostile Republican Congress. In the face of that, he did what he could and succeeded remarkably well. This is another case of Obama being disingenuous.
I also have a question for Obama. He has made a big deal about his opposition to the "War" in Iraq. I would like to know what he did to make his views known at the time. He was a politician, he had a forum in the Illinois Semate. What did he do to raise the profile of his "opposition". He was well known in Chicago, what did he do to make the media aware of his "opposition". Maybe he did a lot, but no one is telling that story. all we hear is that he was opposed to it from the beginning.
It was easy to be opposed to the War if you kept a low profile. If you had some prominence, and spoke out clearly, you were vilified by the media. I am also unhappy with Hillary's votes in the lead up to the War, but how many others in the Senate clearly voted against the war, and how many of them are still there?
Hillary has got to quit conflating her years as 1st lady as some sort of co-presidency. I'm reasonably certain that nothing prohibited her from running for elective office before and during the years WJC was actually in office. If she had, then and only then, could she take credit or blame for the actions of the government in those years.
Leigh @ 81:
What are you talking about? Bush did not have "sky high" approval ratings at the start of his first term, before 9/11, at a time when people wanted a continuance of the Clinton/Gore policies. If people didn't want a continuation, then his ratings should have been great even after the Supreme Court decision.
Obama espouses to be the candidate of reflection, yet he forgets that the reason why Clinton's first term hurt the Democrats is because he tried for the same type of policies that that Obama himself wants to change. At the start of his first term, the country was still in a mind set of "gays are bad" and "no more taxes, even for healthcare." If Obama wants to say that Clinton's policies to make progressive ideas a reality in America was wrong, then he's going to face the same problem if he's elected President. Who here would honestly think that with him being the new kid on the block, the party elders won't try to shape his policies as their own?
myiq2xu @ 112:
Because he's not running against a Republican. Yet. And when he does, he will.
I'll take a pack of about 500 of those flyers because I would love to hand them out at the polls on April 22.
Marge @ 123:
He sure has divided people. He came here last week, and over 20,000 people came to see him. How dare he divide us people like that.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 114:
Oh please. Don't be absurd. Those are the facts of Bill Clinton's record. Hillary is choosing to run on that record so let him/them defend it. Obama is not playing hardball, he's simply reminding people that Bill Clinton's term wasn't all roses. If he wanted to play hardball, we'd be hearing about more sleeze that we wanted to. But he has taken the high road and won't "go there."
One of the things that made the first Clinton Administration work was that it was profoundly fact-based. Obama keeps repeating Republican hype such as saying that Social Security is in "crisis." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/09/obama-refers-to-social-s_n_7193...
and also taking cheap shots at trial lawyers when malpractice costs account for less that 1% of medical costs.
http://www.marylandlawyerblog.com/2008/01/hillary_clinton_and_barack_oba...
Obama hasn't really been attacked yet. Nothing like the Clinton's, Gore or Kerry were. I'm not at all sure he can take it.
I think the reasoning behind our abuse of each other is we are well practiced after 7 years of Bush, and we understand that the repubs are basically handing us the reigns. We all at this point know how important it is we get this right because the next few years are going to be very difficult and we don't want to continue the royal fuck over. Lets hope whomever we choose will be a dynamic leader who issues in an era of struggle for true progress and not the same struggle for mere survival while the elite engorge themselves on the fruits of our pitious toil.
Lori @ 127:
Lori, he's got to stop running against his opponets and start running on his platform...which I'm really fuzzy on.
He's for change. Okay, what kind of change? Clinton claims to be for change, too. Hell, by definition, THERE WILL BE CHANGE, WHETHER IT'S A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN.
And he's got to dump Bob the Builder as his slogan writer.
Can we build it?YES WE CAN!You've gotta be kidding. He's going for the all-important 3-6 year old male vote?
The reasons I will NOT under any circumstances vote for HRC are as follows:
1). Her vote on the Iraq War. She never read the intelligence report.
2). She voted for the Kyl/Lieberman authorization. Indefensible.
3). We are seeing the results of NAFTA and the deregulation of Telecommunications.
Hell will freeze over before I vote for her.
Lori @ 65:
tanglewood @ 134:
Yawn............................
Marge @ 123:
diamondmc @ 129:
The Realist @ 135:
Proud2bHumble @ 14:
Site Monitor: I must say you are such a HYPOCRITE! Yesterday, you deleted my posts for something which wasn't even that close to being uncivil. I see how you it. I got my eyes on you!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104200/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
Go Hillary!
I am so going to celebrate when John McCain is inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America! You Democrats are such idiots!
The Realist @ 135:
Hieronymus Braintree @ 131:
All words of truth...thanks man.
jane @ 141:
The jolly geen troll strikes again.
Lori @ 65:
Let's see . . . Clinton left us with: peace, prosperity, the respect of the world, lowest unemployment in 50 years. a huge budget surplus, Freedom.
Uh, yip, I'll have some more of that. Perhaps it could have been better, I don't know, but Big Dawg did it, and did it better than anyone. The problem with Obama is that he hasn't done it, and hasn't demonstrated any capacity to do it. Good talker though.
diamondmc @ 144:
Keep calling me troll bonehead! You're one the reasons why the Democratic party is in this sorry state!
jane@141: I guess you will be signing up to serve in the wars that McBain will be getting us into, right?
Lori @ 65:
Ok, I've read all the comments and this is the trump card. There are better, more suitable people in a position to lead now. The Clintons need to own up to the fact that they sold us all into slavery following Bill's second term...
diamondmc @ 129:
Televangelists bring those kinds of crowds too. As a matter of fact those people who go to those revivals leave with that very glassy eyed look alot of you Obamaphites get as you spout the Gospel According to Obama..
I was an Edwards supporter and will vote for the Dem candidate regardless, but you Obama folks scare the hell out of me and alot of other people still trying to make an intelligent choice. Your fanatical approach to Obama is the very same approach by fanatical Christians that turns so many people off to Christianity.
Follow or die. Give me a break.
Login or Register to post comments.