I didn't realize so many people listen to, and believe, AM talk radio. Do y'all take wrestling seriously too?
That is also why I was so hard on Obama at first. I just don't know what an Obama adminstration would look like and I'm still trying to figure out if he's genuine or just saying whatever we want to hear.
Bill did a lot of good things for the country - but he also squandered opportunities of a lifetime if you're a Democrat (I was actually happy with this, because I'm more moderate). His administration resulted in a decade of Republican controlled Congresses, in large part due to his and Hillary's actions regarding health care, and their style of leadership that involved trying to force it onto the country with no compromise and no negotiation. Some of the bad that has happened over the past eight years was enabled because the Clintons' leadership style hurt the party badly. And that extends beyond Congress - during their leadership, the Dems lost a ton of governorships and statehouses as well. Similarly, the Bush style of leadership - which is very similar in terms of the polarizing us-vs-them mentality - has reversed this process and squandered serious opportunities for the Republican Party going forward. But a Hillary administration is fairly likely to send it right back the other way again.
Good analysis. Both Clinton and Bush ran on moderate platforms to get elected yet did different things once in office. However, one went far left (Clinton) and the other far right (Bush). Don't you think an Obama administration would take us FAR LEFT even farther than Hillary? Based on his voting record, he's even more Liberal than Clinton. We could also argue that McCain would vote for many of Bush's policies as well bringing it Far right. However, McCain has a history of breaking from the Republican party from time to time. He seems to me be the most moderate candidate among the three.
Bill Clinton ran on a moderate platform and was a pretty moderate politician. He was involved in the Democratic Leadership Caucus a moderate to conservative group within the Democratic Party. Hillary tried to get national health and failed partly because she was tactically unwise in trying to overcome the huge health insurance lobby, which has to this day yet to be overcome. There was a huge group of conservatives that went after the Clintons from private law suits financed by right wingers, to the newly created talk radio, the televangelists like Jerry Falwell, to the going nowhere impeachment by the Tom Delay Congress. These efforts spilled over into the mainstream media, whith for instance the NYT, writing 200 stories about Whitewater, which turned out to be not much of anything. The fact that these efforts made the relatively moderate Clintons hated, does not mean that the Clintons enacted or tried to enact policies that were divisive. What is so divisive about balancing the budget, having a relatively conservative welfare reform etc. etc. I challenge any critic or who claims the Clintons are so divisive to show me what they have done (not the current campaign) that makes them so divisive. That being said I support Obama as Hillary was too much for the failed Iraqi adventure and as we see from this bbs, even professed moderates have bought the lie that the Clintons were so left wing and divisive.
That's my biggest concern with Obama, and why I wouldn't be particularly upset if McCain won. Those two, along with Bloomberg, are the only three people I can see myself voting *for* out of this entire primary season; anyone else would be a vote against someone worse (kind of how lots of people thought of Kerry vs. Bush in 2004). Ordinarily, I'm a big believer in divided government because it forces compromise. What gives me hope that Obama won't be far-left as a President is his inherent nature to look for solutions that go beyond a 51% threshold of support and his non-ideological base. These are two of my favorite articles that go into the "behind the scenes" of the Obama campaign: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html I really would like Obama with a just slightly Dem congress, but I don't see a way for that to be reality. If Obama wins the Presidency, he's going to bring a lot of Dems to Congress with him in the swing elections.
Obama and Clinton have minute public policy positions and records on votes present. This myth on Obama being "far leftist" is a product of biased sampling on last year’s senate votes when he barely was at enough votes to be calculated (John McCain missed even more and didn’t have a calculated right-left score). Even the National Review notes there is almost no differences between Clinton and Obama’s senate voting records.
Oh I agree - sorry, I should have stated that would be my concern with ANY Democrat. Ultimately, I'm very moderate and like centrist solutions. My concern any time one party gets control of Congress and the Presidency is that there's a temptation to chase some of the party's loonier goals. The fact that Obama's policy development team seems to be more interested in data than ideology makes me think that it might not be as bad as a leader who followed ideology more.
Major, divided government is usually praised by those who believe government is useless and just an impediment to the free market. We have urgent problems, that require government action. Global warming, budget deficits, health care,the Iraq War etc. The parties are deeply divided on these issues. Wishing this was not true won't change it. As we see now with a Congress narrowly in control of one party and a president of the opposite party nothing gets done.
Funny you would mention Bloomberg. I voted for him in NY. I would vote for him as President. Maybe 2012?
I disagree - that's only the case if you have crappy leadership, as have now with Reid/Pelosi/Bush. The GOP Congress in the 1990's worked fantastically well with Clinton after a rough start. For all of Gingrich's public rhethoric, he worked extremely well with Bill Clinton to accomplish good centrist solutions on welfare, the budget, etc. Take this, for example: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washing...ow-monica-killed-a-clinton-gingrich-pact.html In public, they were oil and water. As president, Bill Clinton distrusted then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the Republican felt the same way about Clinton. But in a shocking revelation, we're learning that the political foes—desperate for a heroic legacy—made a secret pact to fix the nation's most problematic programs like Social Security. The plan crashed, however, in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "Monica changed everything," says former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. It was in 1997, when the budget was flush and partisanship at a lull, says Steven Gillon, a History Channel host and University of Oklahoma professor who reveals the deal in his upcoming page-turner, The Pact. "This was a moment where everything came together to create this possibility in 1997-98," he says. "Those circumstances will probably never be duplicated." Using Gingrich's notes and interviews with Bowles and other Clintonistas, he describes months of meetings leading to a face-to-face in the Treaty Room on Oct. 28, 1997. The plan: Clinton would propose fixing Social Security and Gingrich would back it. Both would work their sides to pass it after the 1998 elections. Other deals would follow. But the Lewinsky saga broke first, returning partisanship. "It really did matter, and it destroyed this moment of bipartisanship that both of them had worked hard for," says Gillon. They were so close to actually dealing one of government's biggest problems - with a solution that would have held for the long-term due to its bipartisan support. If you seek partisan solutions, then when the leadership switches, you're just going to undo half of that. For example, the Clinton assault weapons ban or the Bush tax cuts. They aren't sustained solutions because they are inherently unsupported by half the country.
Yeah - that talk was that he would run if neither McCain or Obama made it out of the primaries. But his appeal - the centrists - is also their appeal so he backed out this time. If the political climate is ugly in 2012, I could see it again. I'm a huge Bloomberg fan - maybe moreso than Obama because I would love for neither party to control the Presidency. It takes a lot of the politics out of deciding whether to work with or against the President.
I totally agree with you. I am defintely a Bloomberg fan. I thought Rudy was a good mayor but I think Bloomberg made things even better. He has that ability to get things done no matter what party is involved.
That is extremely interesting. I wonder what the change to social security was. Of course this belies the idea that Clinton was so horribly polarizing. It is an argument for your proposed benefits of divided government It does undercut the accompanying argument that only moderates can make compromises. Certainly Gingrich is not seen as a mild mannered moderate though I at least see Clinton as a moderate. Also you have to wonder why the Monica Lewinski affair led to such partisanship if there was this magic moment of bipartisanship and good government, never to be repeated.
Obama: Don't Assume I'll Take VP Slot By CHARLES BABINGTON, AP 27 minutes ago // COLUMBUS, Miss. — Democrat Barack Obama ridiculed the idea of being Hillary Rodham Clinton's running mate Monday, saying voters must choose between the two for the top spot on the fall ticket. The Illinois senator used his first public appearance of the week to knock down the notion that he might accept the party's vice presidential nomination. He noted that he has won more states, votes and delegates than Clinton so far. "I don't know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place," Obama said, drawing cheers and a long standing ovation from about 1,700 people in Columbus, Miss. Saying he wanted to be "absolutely clear," he added: "I don't want anybody here thinking that somehow, 'Well, you know, maybe I can get both.' Don't think that way. You have to make a choice in this election." "I am not running for vice president," Obama said. "I am running for president of the United States of America." Obama aides said Clinton's recent hints that she might welcome him as her vice presidential candidate appeared meant to diminish him and to attract undecided voters in the remaining primary states by suggesting they can have a "dream ticket." Obama had never suggested he might accept a second spot on the ticket. But until Monday he had not ridiculed the notion so directly, even if he did completely rule it out in Shermanesque terms. He told the audience that it made no sense for Clinton to suggest he is not ready to be president and then hint that she might hand him the job that could make him president at a moment's notice. "If I'm not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?" he said, as the crowd laughed and cheered loudly. Mississippi holds it primary Tuesday, the last contest before the Pennsylvania primary six weeks from now. Clinton and her husband, the former president, had suggested recently that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be popular and formidable against Republican Sen. John McCain in November. Many political activists discounted the notion all along. They noted that the two senators lack a warm relationship and, more important, that Obama would be ill-served by hinting he might accept the vice presidential slot when he holds the lead in delegates and hopes to win the presidential nomination. In the latest Associated Press count, Obama leads Clinton, 1,578-1,472. He has won 28 contests to her 17. Moreover, many insiders feel the ambitious and fast-rising Obama would chafe in the vice president's job, especially in a White House where Bill Clinton would almost surely play a huge advisory role. Still, the notion of a Clinton-Obama ticket has received ample discussion in recent days on cable TV news shows and newspapers such as New York City's tabloids. In an interview Friday in Wyoming with KTVQ-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Billings, Mont., Obama's comments were somewhat mixed. "Well, you know, I think it's premature," he said of accepting the second spot on the ticket. "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate." His Monday remarks were more detailed, pointed and humorous. Of course, they will not completely end the speculation. Presidential candidates routinely disavow any interest in the vice presidential spot. But some, including John Edwards and Al Gore, change their minds when they fall short of their top goal. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
I've seen you say this a few times but considering that Clinton actually adopted many of the Republicans position I would hardly call that no compromising and taking the country to the left. Largely what pissed off Republicans so much was that Clinton would take their issues and use them against them.
Doesn't this undercut your previous statement? I've often seen you criticize Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) for what you perceive as no-compromize stick it to you style yet the record doesn't necessarily show that. As you noted Bill Clinton actually did work with a Congress that publicly loathed him. Hillary Clinton has also not been divisive cancer in the Senate as many said she would but has been able to work with across the aisle.
