Obama takes on the '90s
By Steve Benen Wednesday Feb 06, 2008 4:13pm
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.