home

The Long Game

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:09:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum quotes Andrew Sullivan:

[Liberals] have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game.

Drum remarks:

This is sort of a watered-down version of the 11-dimensional chess hosannas that deservedly got a lot of mockery back in the day. But it wasn't true of Obama then (both his campaign and governing strategies have been fairly straightforward) and it's not necessary to explain anything now.

I agree. However, I disagree when Drum writes "Why is Obama now taking a harder, more partisan approach toward his GOP adversaries? [. . . H]e's doing it because it's an election year. It's now time for contrast, not compromise. This is Campaigning 101."

I disagree because governing requires contrast too. A pol must convince the populace that how he wants to govern is the right way to go as opposed to the policies proposed by your opponents. FDR was not FDR because he was a firebrand liberal. He governed as he did, and politicked during the governing BTW, because he thought he needed those policies for good governance and, not coincidentally, to win reelection. In terms of political style, Obama followed the Clinton way, and now, as Clinton, he fights the contrast fight, because the Third Way did not work then and will not work now.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Open Thread | SOPA Protest Blackouts Begin, Add Your Voice >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Long Game | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Could it also be that (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    maybe he's backing away from the bipartisan crap too?  Does he finally succomb to the truth about a fallacy that he came into office determined to make into a truth?

    I know there is no way any sane person could campaign on anything other than contrast now.  After he wins, does this bipartisan crap of his that has destroyed so much finally die a natural death though, or is it going to come back to life again?

    I honestly find it hard to fault (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    his as much as some do for the attempts to be bipartisan.  its not only the right thing to do, assuming you have an opposition party acting in good faith, the country is longing for it.

    having said that I think he gets it now.  and if he is reelected I think a lot of they hysterical knee jerk opposition may cool a bit because stopping another term will not be an issue.

    Parent

    I think that it should not have taken (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    him three years to figure out that the opposition party was not "acting in good faith," but yes, I sincerely and profoundly hope and pray that he indeed "gets it now."

    Parent
    no argument (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    but in truth he got some stuff done.  not to go all Sully or anything but he did.  and considering the batsh!t crazy kamikaze we-live-to-oppose-Obama no charge is to ridiculous republican opposition, I think he has to be given credit for that.

    Parent
    In principle, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    But in practice it has been quite clear that the GOP has not been an opposition party acting in good faith for quite a long time now. Obama should have recognized that and acted accordingly.

    Parent
    who knows if he is this much (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    of a tactician but the argument could be made that continuing to so publicly prostate in an attempt to get republican support was all about the "long game".

    Parent
    As you already said (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    Clearly highlights and confirms the experience argument.  He thought he could play nice - he wasn't around the Senate long enough to build relationships and had no federal experience to know how to work the system.

    But there are those who believed his awesomeness would allow him to overcome that.

    Parent

    in fact (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    all indications are that it will

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    Could be that he knew exactly what he could accomplish given 8 years and the political opposition he was facing. I envision a highly tuned actuarial model.

    It is just horrible that what could be accomplished is so inadequate to the challenges we face as a country.

    Parent

    Disagree regarding Republican actions (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    Republicans will continue to obstruct in hopes of bringing about failure looking to the 2016 elections.

    The GOP degenerated into depravity over the last three decades and that level of depravity won't end soon.  

    GOP operatives cultivated divisiveness to gain power and in the meantime turned their base into a bunch of raving lunatics.

    Perhaps worse, I suspect that GOP leadership actually believes their own crap.

    It will take establishing a center with successful activist policy to bury the GOP and the GOP will stop at nothing to prevent establishing a progressive center.

    Parent

    I don't doubt that the country longed for it (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    but it isn't now.  The live audiences in the GOP primary have made it clear to even those who aren't political junkies that who the GOP base is during this time is not someone sane people unite with.

    When I watched Alexandra Pelosi's documentary on Evangelicals, she argued that Democrats needed to find common ground with them because they were a power that was rising.  I shook my head in disagreement, but I knew she was likely speaking the speak of the beltway.  It was always bullshite though.  This country has gone through many "revivals" that fall by the wayside when times get tough and we have to pull our heads out of our mysticism and find real answers that work.  This wasn't America's first religious awakening.

    Evangelicals are what I consider a cult too, and they once thrived on projecting exclusivity during a robust economic time.  Times get tough and suddenly repeating the prayer of Jabez over and over again everyday isn't working so hot though.  It's time to attack some poor people and some brown people and some black people.

    I never had to fudge my beliefs or my morals and values, I only needed to stand my ground.  My beliefs and morals are based on real life, not some fantasy and rhythmic emphasized words from a pounded pulpit when credit was free and God loved us all and it was harder to find some exclusivity to feel special in and some couldn't stand that.

    Nobody finds common ground with Evangelicals though, their identity is based upon how they are different and better than the rest.  They have no interest in ever being "common" and that is why the further right Obama goes the further right the South and the Evangelicals go.  Their whole identity is wrapped up in how they aren't being us.  Their whole identity is wrapped up in not sitting next to us in class, but making sure they sit completely on the other side of the room and forever if need be look for a few opportunities to jeer at us.  It's a wasted miserable life, but it is their choice and like children, horses (I just watched the documentary on Buck), and dogs....if you think you will bribe them into respecting you you will only breed more contempt :).

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    that Pelosi is looking at things from a beltway perspective and I'm sure that's a lot of what has gone wrong these last few years. The fact of the matter is that the evangelical movement is spent. I mean these people are fighting over whether to endorse Newt or Santorum. Considering what they say they stand for it should be a no brainer and they should endorse Santorum but even they know that his radical beliefs won't win a general election. These people are so bankrupt it's not even funny and they are giving Christianity a very bad name. The sooner they drop out of the political process the better.

    Parent
    MT, you are a poet (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:04:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:53:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    I am going to disagree with some it, they think they are better, but it's been my experience that they want to be around others, and push, push, push.  They are very, not passive aggressive, maybe christian aggressive.  They will smile to your face, then stab you in the back and take delight in twisting while telling you how need to be like them, good Christians.

    Not exactly, but coming from the north there is this underlying hatred that is cloaked in nicety that has been unnerving at times.

    I have regular discussion with this guy I work with, he's old and definitely southern, he can't even say the word black, he whispers it.  I mentioned it a coupe times that if you can't hold your views out in public, they are not good views.  His comeback is always some version of politically correct.  It's sad, he's a nice guy, just a different generation, but it goes to my point.  At work he's a delight and liked by everyone, but for some reason I am lucky enough to be let in on the ugliness, probably because I am white.  And it sucks because it's pretty diverse around here.

    But there are a lot of people like that here and they are almost always Evangelical.  Pleasant to you, but for some reason that's something that has to be done socially, but when they feel like they are around like minds, then the ugly hatefulness comes out.

    Being a Yankee, it took me a long time to adjust because it's so well developed.  One minute your talking to a nice person, then bam, just the most vile hateful garbage, then back to nice.

    Parent

    Evangelicals aren't just in the South though (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:54 PM EST
    I've had some heavy exposure and I was living in Colorado and Wyoming.  I was living in Wyoming when the movement was a baby but I was engaged to the nephew of a minister that ended up in Benny Hinn Ministries.  I've seen some stuff go down :)  The poor guy I was engaged to but grew to hate because of the faith I think (we did not end up marrying...I ended up literally running away), he became a DEA agent in Florida (as was always his plan).  But because of so much brain washing and crazy mysticism about invisible angels and demons fighting each other he got to the point that he could no longer function in his job and had a nervous breakdown.  He ended up on suicide watch, and divorced, and broken.  It was sad.  He was a good person and stable once upon a time, and handsome and intelligent too.  His whole family is deeply entrenched in it though, he has no way out, no support system other than to be crazy.

    Parent
    I really have trouble w/the lumping of (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    all evangelicals into a single, negative stereotype. Jimmy Carter certainly doesn't fit it. Neither do many others


    Parent
    Why do you consider Carter (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    an Evangelical?

    Parent
    Is it because he is "born again"? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:26:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Southern Baptist (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:29:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Dobson went to war with him long ago though (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    He has been kicked out of Evangelical Americana for openly expressing his desire among them all long ago for gays to have their own family units.  He expressed such ideas to them all when I was in grade school and they want no part of him evah.  Carter is what I consider an old fashioned "revival" Christian.  Generally a decent person looking to treat others decently.  No current Evangelical leader seeks his alliance, guidance, or assistance.

    Parent
    That's kind of my point. Carter most (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:57:11 PM EST
    likely considers himself to be an evangelical Christian.  Do Dobson et al. speak for every evangelical Christian?  I don't think so.  

    Parent
    I think its a mistake (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    to judge the whole country by the reactions of the audiences for republican debates or what right wing evangelicals want.

    Parent
    who by the way (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    are not at all the people Obamas "long game" is being played to.

    Parent
    So you think that at least 60% (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    of America watched that debate or the highlights that have been on all day and weren't horrified?

    Parent
    Remember how much of the "Conservative" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    military answered a survey about gays serving and said that it would be okay to serve next to a gay soldier and live next to a gay soldier?  And you really think that a majority of America isn't just flat out horrified by the last Republican debate?

    Parent
    And it wasn't just the crowd (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    The crowd was played to by the candidates, these candidates are party leaders and that was what was REALLY horrifying.  Do you really think any of those guys can just dial back what they have said before God and everyone and we will still want to join up?  Oh hell no

    Parent
    you misunderstand (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:26:01 PM EST
    or perhaps I do.  that is not my point.  read below.

    I agree with that

    Parent

    I dont know (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    my point is larger and directed at your comment that I think was a response to mine about "not doubting the country longed for it" or something like that.

    I dont think you can watch a bunch of yahoos at a republican debate and extrapolate from that there is not a longing in the larger population of the  country for having their government work.  which I hate to say involves compromise.

    I have no doubt that many people have been horrified by many things that have happened at republican debates this year.  the list is long. and my point is it is those horrified people I think Obama is and has been playing to by setting up the republicans to look like the party of no.

    you cant take a bunch of radical evangelicals or loud mouthed republican fan boys as any kind of indication of that the country wants.

    Parent

    I see where you are coming from now (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:36:05 PM EST
    The current Republican party leaders though.....what is there to be bipartisan with?  They hate women, they hate children other than their own, they hate brown people, they hate black people, they hate gay people, they hate poor people, they hate sick people....what is there to be bipartisan with that doesn't require us locking ourselves in a closet and ritually cutting ourselves in order to tolerate?  Jus sayin, I don't think anyone is crazy enough to dream about bipartisaning with these guys these days.

    Parent
    I dont disagree with a single word of that (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:37:31 PM EST
    but it STILL makes a huge amount of sense, electorally, for Obama to appear to be trying.

    Parent
    I think it works against him at this time (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:41:58 PM EST
    And after the election, I think he needs to do right by the black community if nobody else and tell these f^ckers to go fl^ck themselves.  We need to run so against them that they are voted out of power again in the House.  Pelosi says it's possible.  She wants to be speaker again so bad it isn't funny :)  Whip those donkeys Nancy, make em sing for suppers :)

    Parent
    I think taking the house back (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    is not only possible but I already predicted that in threads here.  
    the the truth is Obama will not help himself by showing the anger that you and I and most likely he feels.  he wont.  and he is smart enough to know that.


    Parent
    He won't win the House back (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    by saying that Republicans have been right.

    Parent
    he has not said the (none / 0) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:33:10 PM EST
    republicans are right about much of anything for a while now.  in fact he has been scalding them pretty good in speech after speech and I expect that to continue.  and increase.

    neither will he will the white house by becoming the angry black man they would so love to portray him as.

    Parent

    You seem overly worried to me about him (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    being an angry black man.

    Parent
    as he is and has (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    spoken of more than once.

    Parent
    Talk, talk, talk... (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    problem is, he's pretty bad on the follow-through; that's a tactic that works much better when someone doesn't have a record to answer for.

    If anything, getting re-elected is going to free him to quit paying lip service to what used to be the Democratic platform - have you looked at his jobs council's recommendations yet?  Straight out of the Heritage Foundation/GOP/conservative playbook.

    But, by all means, just pay attention to his words.

    Parent

    Talk, talk, talk... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    thats actually very funny

    Parent
    Not remotely as funny ... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    ... as comment #176.

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:06:49 PM EST
    I guess

    Parent
    Wow...it only took you (none / 0) (#194)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    16 minutes to read that!  And I didn't even have to mention Dick, Jane or Spot.

    Well done - keep up the good work!

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    I have a life that interferes with hanging on your every word.  I will try to do better.

    Parent
    You have a life? That's the funniest of (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    the nearly 100 comments you have made - so far - today.

    As near as I can tell, your life consists of sitting in front of the computer, making sure you opine on every single, solitary comment every single, solitary commenter here makes.

    When you're not replying to replies to your own comments, that is.

    You have a life.  Sure you do.

    Parent

    goodness (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:55:43 PM EST
    take a deep breath.  or something

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    accept that he lurched rightward on so many issues of importance because he wanted to be bipartisan.

    I think he misled a bunch of people into thinking he was liberal when in fact he has never been that.

    I may not be representative of anything, but to the extent to which I hoped for anything it was a complete turning away from the horrors of the GW Bush administration. Obama's notion of being "bipartisan" is apparently to leave as much of the sickness foisted upon us by his predecessor intact.

    Parent

    actually he is governing pretty much the way (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    he campaigned.  or at least the way many of us expected him to govern based on the way he campaigned.

    he was never the leftist some leftists thought he was and is certainly not the righist he is often portrayed as.

    Parent

    Well, he did give thaChicago speech against US (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    Invading Iraq. And  b/4 he decided to run for Pres. He was supportive of the Palestinians.

    Parent
    I think a quote from W suffices to answer you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    ". . . fool me once, shame on -- [pauses] -- shame on you. Fool me -- [pauses] -- You can't get fooled again. "

    Parent
    I'd like to think (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    he's learned something.

    If nothing, the debt ceiling fiasco might have been the last straw.

    I certainly hope so.

    Parent

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    I think it has become rather painfully clear that the experience arguments Clinton made during the primary were valid.  for three years he often really seemed in over his head.

    I also like to think he has learned something and I think his actions the last few months indicate he has.  

    Parent

    Drum is right , it's an election year (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    and he has lost a not insignificant number of his base.  Once re-elected , here comes the Grand Bargain & other wastes of time.

    BTD is right also, governing requires contrast but we have not and will see that, instead we'll get more of this hideous search for common ground.

    Parent

    "hideous search for common ground" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    interesting choice of words.

    Parent
    Obama followed the Clinton way? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by smott on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    Erm - really?  It seems to me Obama caved on a number of important progressive points this first term with IMO disastrous results....both politically and policy-wise....

    How is that following Clinton exactly?...

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    that Sullivan is revising the "11 dimensional chess" argument that has largely fallen out of favor. Anyway this is "Campaign Obama" coming out and "Campaign Obama" will say anything to get your vote. The problem he has is that people have seen "Governing Obama" and that is a completely different person than "Campaign Obama" and can look at Obama's record and judge it accordingly this time whereas last time most people just bought into the campaign rhetoric.

    Here is the problem with your position (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    The broad assertion that people are judging Obama and that's why this is a close race ignores a certain reality:

    If the unemployment rate were 7% today, Obama would be a shoe in to win reelection and would be viewed as a smashing success.

    Would that 1.5% mean that all of his other moves and policies suddenly changed drastically in form? Of course not.  What that means is that people view a president's policies based on their own pocketbook many times.

    So despite grumbling about his bailouts and not ending the wars quickly enough and moving to slowly on certain issues and not appointing enough women or whathaveyou, the entire narrative changes in a world of 6.9% unemployment, let's say.  Then, suddenly, Obama's appointment of 2 women justices is a huge win for women's rights.  Then his repeal of DADT and refusal to prosecute DOMA is groundbreaking.  His ending of 1 war and preparation to end another while ridding the world of Ghadafi and Osama and overseeing the Arab spring are all vindications of his greatness.

    In other words, he would be viewed both by dems and liberals generally as a smashing success.

    That's the power of 1.5% in the unemployment numbers and something that everyone who reads too much into his lower numbers now (and those like me who will read into his surge when the unemployment number shrinks) should always keep in mind.

    Money in pockets makes any leader look fantastic.

    Ask Clinton.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    that's kind of been my point all along. All those things would have been great had Obama done job one from the beginning and that is fix the economy but he chose not to do what was needed. It's the economy stupid and one thing Obama should have paid attention to too was Carville's adage that when you're opponent is drowning, you throw him an anvil not a life jacket like Obama has.

    Parent
    This is why we disagree (none / 0) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:03:38 PM EST
    I do not think that it would have been possible for any president to fix the economy in the three years Obama has been in office.  I think the best of the best case scenarios was an additional .5% off of unemployment and that wouldn't be much.

    This recession was global and our fate is tied to the world's.

    That's the crazy part about all of the rhetoric on all sides.

    People still assume that an American would have the most sway over the economy.

    I think the person with the most power over the economy path of the US economy is Merkel in Germany.  No bullsh*t.  If Germany sacrifices for everyone, we'll be just fine.  If not, we are likely screwed.  I think it could be that simple.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    elect Obama then? It would have made more sense to have McCain win the election in '08 if you believe that.

    Parent
    Because there is more to this country (none / 0) (#132)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:37:10 PM EST
    than the unemployment number.  And because the fact that his policies don't change much short term doesn't mean they won't have an impact long term.

    Parent
    yes, there is more (none / 0) (#137)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    to this country than the unemployment numbers

    as for this election, history says that the unemployment numbers, high or low, are sufficient to determine the outcome

    but we'll see

    Parent

    If the unemployment (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    rate was 7% today, which it is not, I would still consider that Obama sold us out on the public option.
    I would still feel that he caved on his promise to close Gitmo.
    I would still feel that his justice department is crazed.
    I would still feel that his signing of a bill that permits indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial is an abomination.
    I would still see that we are in knee deep in Afghanistan.
    I would still see that he is rattling the sword, preparing us for some kind of confrontation with Iran.

    To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in "The Maltese Falcon", a little more money in our pockets might tip the scales a little bit, and allow us to drift to sleep as the country continues to fritter away its hard-earned civil liberties.

    But the reality is that there is no more money in our pockets.
    There is less.

    For me, Obama has been a non-entity. A nothing.
    And the next election will be between a shadow and a freak.

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#94)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    i think all anyone here is saying, or at least all i've said about Obama's re-election prospects, is that they rise & fall with the economy, & specifically with the unemployment rate, an idea on which you & i seem to agree

    if the unemployment rate drops, the swing voters in the swing states -- i.e., the small bloc of relatively apolitical, nonpartisan independents & last-minute "undecideds" who will decide the election -- will probably choose to give Obama a second term

    now, how would Obama's re-election, if based virtually entirely on the unemployment rate, automatically validate everything he has done & magically transform some of his policies from cr@ppy to sublime?

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    Obama has done a fairly good job of letting the GOP go at it over the past few months.  His approval ratings have been recovering slowly but steadily since the end of the debt ceiling debacle (TPM).  He looks good by comparison if nothing else.  Gallup even has him at a draw in approval rating as of yesterday.

    Yes - excellent strategy of laying low (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:22:24 PM EST
    The more they take center stage, the worse they look.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    speaking from a purely political point of view it seems to me he has positioned himself pretty well for the coming election.  poll after poll showing he is the one seeking compromise and the republicans are not.

    so if that is the long game we are talking about I think he is not looking so bad.

    HE's looking great, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    what about the rest of us?  

    He'll be just fine win or lose.

    Parent

    I think the actual topic (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    was the long game and his ability to play it or not.

    but please, dont let that interfere with the hysteria.

    Parent

    His personal success is his long game (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    that is why I believe he is so quick to jettison positions that are dear to his supporters (past & present), in order to, as you put it, get something done.

    Sure, all pols are pols and in it, mostly, for themselves.  Obama, though, disses his supporters and compromises their principals right out of the gate to a greater extent and with more eagerness than any politician I have ever observed.  Anyone who thinks at this point that Obama's election year contrasting is anything more than posturing to regain the weakening support of his base has not been paying attention.

    Parent

    in fact (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    I would say his positioning against any republican challenger, in this economy and considering the bludgeoning he has taken from the opposition - that is even or slightly ahead - is nothing short of miraculous.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    I guess polling does not quite support this at the moment, so call it a hunch, but I don't think he is going to have a problem getting reelected.

    preparing to eat crow come November....

    Parent

    I have long thought he would be reelected (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    lately I have started to consider electoral landslide.

    with noted caveats in other comments.

    Parent

    Define landslide (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    I may want that bet

    Parent
    stay tuned (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    I will let you know

    Parent
    Above 54%, I believe? (none / 0) (#165)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:23:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Completely agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    The fact that he is leading Romney nationally given this economy is evidence that his brand of politics is working amazingly well.

    He is not supposed to be doing this well.

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    The vast majority of people (except political partisan junkies) haven't really started paying attention and won't until there is an actual Republican nominee and it's after Labor Day.

    Parent
    You think Romney (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    is going to become more appealing between now and November?

    I disagree.

    Wasn't the argument against Obama in '08 that he hadn't faced a "real test" against republicans yet?  (and for all that this is getting contentious between Romney and Newt, you can't say Hillary didn't give him a tough fight) The same could be said for Romney at this point. He is losing his luster and he's not even facing the Obama campaign.  It's certainly not true for Obama anymore since he has been under attack from the right for 4 years now.

    Parent

    it really won't matter (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    if the election is a referendum on Obama

    which it will be if the unemployment rate doesn't come down & stay down

    Parent

    it will matter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    because if it is about the economy Romney has nothing to offer the people who are mad at Obama.

    He only has to offer the fact that he likes to fire people like them.

    I think in that case people will stick with the devil they know.

    If Romney could offer a single argument about how he's going to help the middle class it would be different.  The problem is not only that he can't it's that he won't because it goes against his entire ideology.  And he's no GWB that you want to have a beer with while he robs you blind.  He's the type of guy you look at and just KNOW he is robbing you.

    Parent

    i don't think (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    that electoral history supports this assertion:

    I think in that case people will stick with the devil they know.

    in a bad economy, the election becomes a referendum on the incumbent

    whose policies do you think were better for the voters, Jimmy Carter's or Ronald Reagan's?

    Parent

    Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    was an actor, and Carter had an international hostage crisis.

    Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.  And Obama is no Carter.

    Parent

    There's (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    a lot of variables out there: Obama has a demoralized base. There's an enthusiasm gap on the D side. The economy is bad. People aren't going to care about who they want to have a beer with when they don't have a job. If people see Romney as an acceptable alternative to Obama they will vote for him. Less charismatic people have been elected president than Romney. And guess what? Obama is going to do his nomination speech at the Bank of America stadium, the company that people love to hate in this country. How smart is that?

    Parent
    Romney (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    will have a demoralized base.  There will be an enthusiasm gap on the R side.

    Why would anyone who wasn't rich see Romney as an acceptable alternative?

    If you agree that the optics of giving a speech in a stadium owned by Bank of America looks bad, how can you turn around and say that actually running a company that makes Bank of America look like a bunch of patriots - looks good?

    There are lots of variables.  I just fail to see a variable that puts Romney over the top.

    Parent

    Well said, I agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    And this is the end of my hunch-based speculation!

    Parent
    I'm not saying (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    that it's going to put Romney over the top. I'm just saying that Romney's weaknesses are the same as Obama's. Neither one have a clue about the middle class. Romney sees them as someone to be fired while Obama sees them as a sociological experiment to be studied and neither one has a clue as to the suffering that is going on in the country. With that being said, people still might chose Romney simply because they want to get rid of Obama.

    Romney will have a slight advantage I think because while there are going to be people in the GOP that are not wild about him there are going to a lot of people who are going to simply vote against Obama. Now will there be enough of those to push Romney over the top? That is the question.

    Parent

    Disagree about the enthusiam gap (none / 0) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    I think many of the points you are making were valid at the start of last year, but things have changed.  Dems are getting more fired up and the GOP less so as Romney takes the lead:

    This today:

    "ome troubling news for the GOP was reported by the Globe this morning: Fewer Republicans voted in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary then in 2008 and 2000, the last two elections without an incumbent. Low turnout is bad news, indicating that voters are less than enthused about the party's candidates, a concern echoed by a recent CBS News poll showing that 58 percent of Republican voters would like more choices."

    Link

    I think you are making the same arguments that you would probably have made in January 2011, but the landscape has changed slightly.

    Parent

    Who shows (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    up in the primary means nothing with regards to November. I used to think this because back in 2004 literally nobody showed up here in GA to vote for W in the GOP primaries while Dems showed up in mass IIRC.

    Anyway, W went on to carry Ga by something like 18 points. So that kind of blows your theory.

    Parent

    what? (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    GWB didn't have a real opponent in the '04 primary.  Why would anyone show up?

    Parent
    I'm just (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    using it as an example of it means nothing as to what happens in the primaries because they showed up in mass for the general election.

    Parent
    the whole (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    enthusiasm gap thing is totally gone.  that is showing up in poll after poll.
    if it ever existed it does not any more.  google it.

    Parent
    the whole (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    enthusiasm gap thing is totally gone.  that is showing up in poll after poll.
    if it ever existed it does not any more.  google it.

    Parent
    I hate when that happens (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    but I will respond to the second one.

    that gap is gone in all likelihood because of the wonderful and endless republican primary that is embarrassing republicans from coast to coast.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    from googling the enthusiasm gap has shrunk from a 13 point difference to a 5 point difference but the GOP still has the advantage in the latest polling I could find on the subject.

    FWIW Fox did a poll out today that had Romney and Obama tied.

    Parent

    Latest Poll Shows 90% support from (none / 0) (#170)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:28:01 PM EST
    Democratic base ('WP poll and/or CNN International yesterday, I believe.) That is quite a good number for this early...since, usually, the candidate could expect 92 to 94 percent in a decent year.

    Parent
    Yup - it is not just the economy in a vacuum (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    The opposition has to have something going for them that makes people think they will make it better. I don't see it happening with Romney - he has neither the charisma nor the policy alternatives.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    the economy sucks right now.

    So the fact that he is leading Romney anyway right now makes this argument harder to swallow.

    Putting Romney on TV more isn't going to help him make the economic argument.

    Parent

    we'll see soon enough (none / 0) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:24:24 PM EST


    Parent
    He is running against a party (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    that in 2008, 3 years ago, was completely discredited.

    Parent
    they were (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    in 2010 when they won more house seats than any election in history.  whats your point?

    Parent
    on this (none / 0) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    i will agree with you

    my evidence is anecdotal, but it seems to me that ordinary people (i.e., people who are not strong partisans of any stripe, & who do not spend hours commenting on blogs like TL) have absorbed the message that the GOP is the "party of no"

    i imagine that will help Obama somewhat, but i also foresee an election that will be close, one whose outcome will depend above all on the economy, not on people's perceptions of who is or is not "seeking compromise"

    if the unemployment rate doesn't start dropping & keep coming down, ordinary nonpartisan people (i.e., independents), together with partisan Republicans, may well vote Obama out of office

    Parent

    no argument here (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:40:48 PM EST


    Parent
    The Third Way Failed? (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    Based on what metric?  Clinton's two terms? His long term high approval ratings? The success of the economy under his leadership?

    Despite the battles with Newt and his crew, the real  determination of success is the big picture results.  If you argue that Clinton's presidency was about the Third Way and then ask if his presidency was a success, I don't know if we can claim the Third Way failed.

    The argument being that the big battles that highlighted partisanship masked lower level successful negotiations on various lower level issues that aggregated into a larger success.

    Don't know the answer, but I didn't know that everyone viewed the Third Way as a failure.  

    "Despite the battles . .. " (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    Clinton won reelection BECAUSE of the battles.

    My gawed, the stupid in this thread is piling up.

    I'm leaving again.

    Parent

    but how do you feel (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    about Tebow?

    Parent
    That's a response (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    We can agree on that at least.

    Parent
    BTD.... (none / 0) (#138)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    LOL !! I so agree with you !

    Parent
    Hmmmm. Perhaps Jeralyn's "BTD is away (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    foraway for a few days"" had an extra dimension to it.

    Parent
    Oh brother (3.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    Lowered capital gains to 20%, eliminated Glass-Steagall, deregulated communications, twisted many Democratic arms to pass foolish trade agreements.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    Oversaw a period of prosperity

    Still has remarkably high approval ratings

    Could get elected again if he could run

    It would be good if the narratives all fit into simple storylines, but they do not.

    Parent

    maybe i wasn't paying attention (none / 0) (#139)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    but i don't remember ever before seeing such a stirring defense of Bill Clinton and the "third way" from you, ABG

    Parent
    I think Bill Clinton was a great POTUS (none / 0) (#148)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    and I also think that if he were President in this environment, he'd be as distrusted by the further left as Obama is now, perhaps moreso because I think  he would have conceded even more.

    I think the Obama Presidency is remarkably similar to Clinton's in terms of concessions and such.  We are simply in a different time and the expectations on the left are much higher now IMHO.  Others will disagree with that I am sure, but if Obama had passed DADT, DOMA, Glass Stegall and Welfare Reform during his term, there would be an all out revolt in the party.

    Clinton was able to do it with only minimal blowback.  Times have changed.

    Parent

    The expectations on the left aren't higher ... (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    ... because of the passage of 16 years - they're higher because Obama allowed himself to be sold as a progressive when he needed those votes, then failed to live up to expectations.

    Double-edged sword.

    Moreover, public opinion was strongly against repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and in favor of DOMA in the early 90s.  Now, public opinion has swung strongly the other way - it was a no-brainer that took no political capital.  By "Glass Steagall", I assume you meant GLB, which was passed with a large, veto-proof majority (362-57 and 90-8).  Despite the fact that GLB did not cause the financial meltdown, of course there would be more resistance to any type of deregulation ... so what?

    It's not that the "expectations are higher on the left", ...

    .... it's that the bar among some Obama supporters is so much lower.

    Parent

    not to mention (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    Clinton handed them the club to beat him with.

    Parent
    Side Note (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    The most accurate piece of both Klein's piece was the following IMHO:

    "Obama's reelection won't be decided in the pages of newsweeklies. It will be largely decided by the state of the economy. And the state of the economy will largely be decided by events in Europe."

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    if it's going to be decided by Europe then Obama is toast because they are going all out on austerity over there.

    Suze Orman was talking about this very thing the other night. She said it's going to be bad here but not as bad as it's going to be in Europe this year.

    Parent

    I don't see Orman (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    as some sort of wise oracle, but I have been saying here since last year when we were talking about the Bush Tax cuts and the economy that Greece and the domino effect was going to be the key driver of American unemployment.

    It's the reason that attempts to link Obama's policies to a high unemployment rate at the end of 2012 will be completely dishonest, although they will probably work.

    Parent

    You have (none / 0) (#190)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:04:30 PM EST
    and I paid more attention because of the heads-up.

    Parent
    Toxic Waste (none / 0) (#18)
    by koshembos on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    Sadly, many Obama supporters refuse to watch reality unfurl. They still believe that extending Bush tax cuts, short changing social security by cutting 2% off the contribution, an impossible and expensive health care reform are not awful and damaging to most of us.

    For this people, Obama the great is equivalent to there is no global warming.

    Clinton was a good president. He fought the Republicans, he raised taxes on richer people, he let them close the government and showed them up, etc. It's about time that people stop libel Clinton on everything under the sun.

    he also lived in different times (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    and with a opposition party far more likely to try to do good for the country in spite of hating him.

    Parent
    really? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    that is not the GOP i remember, not even from Clinton's first term

    they worked around the clock to delegitimize President Clinton from day one, since they felt that President George H. W. Bush, no matter what the voters said, was entitled not just to Ronald Reagan's third term but to Reagan's fourth term as well

    Parent

    do you remember Clinton being (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    asked to produce his birth certificate?

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    & what a silly question

    nevertheless, there's a reason why Toni Morrison, of all people, said:

    White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

    later, when she went on to clarify her remarks, she said:

    I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp.

    in other words, he was being delegitimized, by the GOP

    Parent

    it is absolutely not a silly question. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    and the fact is it is unimaginable for any of his white predecessors to be ask to do the same.

    Parent
    i wonder (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    which group is larger: the group that thinks Barack Obama is a Kenyan, or the group that thinks Bill Clinton was a drug runner & a murderer

    i guess you think the birthers are crazier & more outrageous

    i think both groups are & were lunatics, with the same goal: to delegitimize a democratically elected president

    by the way, Clinton was actually impeached

    except for the promise to impeach Nixon if he did not resign, you have to go all the way back to the 19th century, & the first President Johnson, to match that

    Parent

    they were certainly both crazy (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    the difference is the birthers are main stream

    Parent
    UTTER nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:11:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Donald Trump (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:13:31 PM EST
    was leading in the polls for the republican presidential nomination with this as his central issue.

    ok.  I would call that mainstream

    Parent

    Saxaphone-playing!!!! (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I remember him being accused of (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    offing Vince Foster to name just one outrageous charge.

    Parent
    speaking of citizenship, i do remember (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    that during the 1992 campaign, operatives for the Bush campaign accused Bill Clinton of being a Soviet spy and seeking to renounce his U.S. citizenship, & they referred these false charges to the FBI for investigation

    within hours, the Bush campaign leaked the story of the FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek, which ran with the story on October 4:

    The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton's passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.

    Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took the offensive, using the press frenzy over the criminal referral to attack Clinton's patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to the Soviet Union in 1970. With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his once-formidable lead shrink. Panic spread through the Clinton campaign.

    is Newsweek mainstream enough for you, Captain?

    note this as well, from the same link (emphasis added): "On March 21 [of 2008], the [state] department discovered that single breaches . . . had occurred in passport files for Hillary Clinton and John McCain" (as well as for Barack Obama)

    & yet you choose to believe that this "citizenship" bullsh!t was newly minted for the exclusive harassment of Barack Obama

    Parent

    or course (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    thats far worse than being a kenyan neo colonialist socialist manchurian candidate

    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    Yes, being accused of murder IS worse than being called a socialist.

    Parent
    right (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    and what to you think the ratio would be of the number of people who believed Clinton killed Vince Foster to the number of people who believe Obama was secretly a foreign muslim?

    Parent
    Don't know - neither do you (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    Not that it's relevant.

    Parent
    Plus, Clinton WAS called a socialist too! (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:18:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Now you sound like a moron (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    Honestly. This is the stupidest series of comments EVER at Talk Left.

    So stupid that I am not banning myself for insulting you.

    You deserve it.

    Parent

    Im happy (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    to give you the work

    Parent
    Murder?!? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    thats far worse than being a kenyan neo colonialist socialist manchurian candidate

    Uh, ... yeah.

    It kinda is...

    Parent

    They went after Clinton badly (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    I think the Obama administration has benefited from that history.  I think they are seriously prepared for such attacks now in ways we can only guess.

    They (Republicans) were saner in approaching the nation then though.  They were somewhat serious about serving the people, not wholly owned by the rich like they are now.  I can't help thinking after watching this Republican primary if some of the Supreme Court isn't really sorry about Citizens United now because it is blowing up the Republican party and nobody can tell me it isn't draining available coffers dry very early on too?  I myself really don't care if millionaire Republicans drain themselves dry throwing every last penny at each other right now though.  I'm sort of cheering that on :)

    Parent

    look (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    lets be honest
    I liked Clinton a lot be he was his own worst enemy.  
    thought experiment:  try to imagine what would happen if Obama was caught having sex with an intern in the oval office.

    Parent
    Well Juan ....(pregnant pause ) (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    Are we talking about a white intern or a black intern or a brown intern :)?  There are different punishments for some people for that offense :)

    Parent
    i'm with Bill Maher (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    & his analysis of Monicagate - Maher says what really brought Clinton down is that he f^cked a Jew on Easter

    Parent
    Well Juan .... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    if that really is your name

    Parent
    in addition (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    those ridiculous against the clintons were not taken seriously by anyone but the fringe.  this year we had a leading republican candidate for president who made it central to his appeal

    Parent
    now you just sound foolish (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    Clinton was impeached

    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    HE HAD SEX WITH AN INTERN IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

    Parent
    no, that is not why (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    but i think i understand why you believe that

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    it was the perjury

    Parent
    yeah, that was the other excuse (none / 0) (#65)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    really, Captain, i am quite surprised to see you clutching your pearls this way over HAVING SEX WITH AN INTERN IN THE OVAL OFFICE!

    Parent
    funny (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    I am actually NOT surprised that you would equate the problems Obama has had compared to the self inflicted ones Clinton had.

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    you misunderstand (perhaps because i miscommunicate)

    i am equating two concerted efforts by the GOP & its partisans, during the current Democratic administration & the last one, to delegitimize a democratically elected Democratic president

    it does not matter & would not have mattered if the "problems" seized upon are or were self-inflicted or not - the goal is the same

    & by the way, there is NO chance that Obama will be impeached for anything at all, partly because of what the GOP did to Clinton, so in that sense Obama has it easier than Bill Clinton

    unless you think being asked for your birth certificate is even more heinous than having the characteristic "bent" of your erect p3nis described in published journalistic accounts

    Parent

    NOT (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    an intern.  Get some facts straight; don't quote  RedState.

    Parent
    You sound misinformed at best (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    Idiotic at worst.

    Parent
    wasn't Vince Foster murdered (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    by You Know Who? the First Lady?

    Parent
    whatever (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    the point is no one but the fringe nut cases believed it and it was never covered in the main stream media except as a source of humor.

    Parent
    Wasn't it one of the topics of the special (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    prosecutor, or at least a congressional investigation? I'd call that taking it seriously.  

    From Wikipedia:

    Investigations by a coroner and Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, in a 58-page report released in 1994, also concluded that Foster had committed suicide.[12] Conspiracy theories of a cover-up still persisted, some of which were promulgated by the Arkansas Project. After a three-year investigation, Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr[19][20] released a report in 1997 also concluding that the death was a suicide.[12]

    In addition, two investigations by the U.S. Congress found that Foster committed suicide.[12]



    Parent
    come on (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    Ken Star was a national joke.  I suppose you can say that technically the fact that it appeared in his report means it was taken seriously but i hope you will not argue that it permeated the national conciseness the way Obama and the legitimacy of his citizenship has

    seriously.  what percentage of voters would you say took the possibility that Hillary killed Vince Foster seriously?

    Parent

    As I recall (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    the mainstream GOP at least paid it lip service as if they believed there was at least a chance it was true, much like they do the birthers now. And they also paid real tax dollars to investigate it.

    Of course, if they were in complete control of Congress now they may very well be investigating the birther stuff now.

    I really do believe ot was at least as bad as the birther thing.

    Parent

    That is so wrong (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    It is hard to respond.

    You simply do not remember or do not know what you are talking about.

    Parent

    you think large (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    numbers of voters believed Hillary killed Vince Foster.  to the point anything like the number that suspect Obamas citizenship?

    Parent
    I would just say if that is true (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    its truly amazing that she was almost the democratic nominee for president.

    Parent
    Howdy, that was one of the biggest (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    arguments against her - not that she actually did anything, but that the right would bring up all this crapola again. Even I did not support her at first because I just did not want to go through the BS again.

    The miracle is that she was willing to take it.

    Parent

    when they were talking about (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    the "stuff" it honestly never occurred to me that murder allegations would be part of what they were talking about.  healthcare, co-presidency etc.

    not murder.  but perhaps I give people to much credit.

    Parent

    Yes, you do! In this case anyway. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    They absolutely would have brought it all in. No doubt in my mind. All their fake sympathy with her, so sanctimonious. BS, all of it.

    Parent
    Seriously, you think the 'Clinton Fatigue' (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    was about arguments over health care and the co-presidency? Oh Capt, you make me smile!

    Parent
    Clinton Fatigue (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    was clearly a broad subject.  but I do not believe that, for example, any opposition candidate would have made - as Trump did with birterism - the murder of Vince Foster and the allegations against Hillary or Bill for that matter a campaign issue.

    I dont.  I remember those days well.  I had the nutcase websites bookmarked and followed them closely.  Clinton Fatigue meant many things but they did not mean that any substantial portion of the electorate took the murder allegations seriously.  which is not to say the websites would not have flourished if she had become the nominee.

    that is my position and I am sticking to it.
    now I am going to dinner.

    Parent

    I'll just add one more thing to the trip (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    down memory lane....I don't remember Newt Gingrich disavowing any of the crazier allegations.

    Parent
    OK, I had to look (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    just to come around full circle....

    Scaife, in particular, is one of the major backers of Newt Gingrich. Interestingly enough, Gingrich's view on Vince Foster seemed to dovetail with Scaife's following Scaife's pumping of thousands of dollars into Gingrich's GOPAC's coffers.

    No, not mainstream at all....

    Parent

    just because Newt (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    or Dan Burton (known widely as watermelon Dan for his Hillary related ballistic experiments in his back yard) believed it doenst mean the belief was widely held.

    Parent
    behold the gravitas (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:03:23 PM EST
    of watermelon Dan

    Parent
    I had one other thought about this (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:49:14 PM EST
    lets all imagine that this is a video of a republican opposition leader in the clinton era being asked on Meet the Press if he believes Hillary killed Vince Foster.

    instead of the speaker of the house being asked if he thinks the president is a citizen and if we all think his answer would have been the same.



    Parent

    He didn't (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    He was instrumental in putting out lies about Waco that Timothy McVeigh swallowed wholesale. Newt was every bit as crazy back then as he is now.

    Parent
    touche (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:28:38 PM EST


    Parent
    well, by 2008, nobody (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    even had to bring up all those allegations, since they had already been hotly discussed & widely disseminated

    & they didn't even need to be true in order for Democrats, many of whom were children & teens during Bill Clinton's two terms, to claim that Hillary Clinton would be an unsuitable presidential candidate because she was just such a, you know, polarizing figure . . .

    Parent

    I remember Clinton ... (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    ... being accused of serial murder, cocaine smuggling, fathering a child with a prostitute, being the first pardoned felon to be elected POTUS, and a few dozen others ...

    Parent
    Here's where I struggle with all this (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:28:50 PM EST
    I don't remember that.

    Now granted, I was a kid at the time and certainly not following politics the way I am now, but it's not like I was living in a bubble where politics weren't discussed.

    I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying it probably wasn't as common or widespread.

    There was a poll at one point that had 25% of Americans thinking Obama was foreign born and not eligible to be president.  How many people really thought that Clinton did all that?

    Parent

    well, that's the thing (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    maybe you just had to be there

    i have memories of Joe McCarthy from when i was a kid, but i had no real idea how bad he was & what he represented until i got older & could talk with people who shared their adult experiences from that era


    Parent

    fair enough (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    I fully recognize that my political awareness in the 90s was not as high as it would have been if I were an adult, or even what it was during his second term when I was a teenager.

    It actually makes me think of the "history gap" that we all grow up with to some extent, of the things that happen when you are either very young or just before you were born.  Things earlier than that you learn about in school and things later than that you learn about in life - but it's hard to get a real perspective on the other years without seeking it out yourself.

    For me that pretty much encompases the 80s and early/mid 90s.

    Parent

    I didn't know you were that young! (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    Good for you - I thought you were old like me.

    Parent
    27 (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    feels older every day :)

    I was 8 when Clinton got elected. As much as I was surrounded by politics at a young age, I was still 8.

    I do remember whitewater though.

    Parent

    Not sure how you can't remember it (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    ... unless you were, as you state, young and not into politics at the time, but it was very real.

    The Clinton Body Count was a conspiracy theory pushed on the internet, talk radio, and even a video series promoted by Jerry Fallwell ("The Clinton Chronicles").  It was also pushed by a Republican Congressman who was pushing for a Congressional investigation.

    There was another video series - "Obstruction of Justice: The Mena Connection" - also heavily promoted by wingers, talk radio, Drudge, etc.

    He was accused of fathering a child with an AA prostitute.

    Also accused of being the first ex-felon elected POTUS.

    All of these claims (and many more) were widely disseminated during Clinton's term, although perhaps not as thoroughly documented on the (relatively young) internet.  They were discussed ad nauseum on talk radio and Drudge - probably the biggest website on the web in the late 90s.  There were national TV commercials run for the "Clinton Chronicles".

    In any event, I'm not sure how many people believed the myths about Clinton, but given the influence of talk radio, Drudge, Newsmax among conservatives, as well as their willingness to believe these conspiracies, it wouldn't surprise me if 25% of people believed it (22% believed Vince Foster's death was a murder).

    Not that it's really any kind of way to measure the opposition or cooperation of Republican legislators with either of them.

    Parent

    Yes, and there was "mysterious" plane (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    crash of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and, of course, the small plane crash onto the south lawn of the White House that was somehow Clinton's failure at security.  

    Parent
    Normally (1.67 / 3) (#173)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    The conspiracy theories don't fuel movements within the country.  Obama's birth did.

    There was a movement to get Clinton but he was kind of screwing around in the oval office so what can you do?

    Parent

    read through this thread (5.00 / 6) (#186)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    you will see documented instances of attempts to "get Clinton" not only from his first day in the White House but also as early as the campaign

    it was during the campaign that Bill Clinton's U.S. citizenship was first challenged (by way of the smear that he had tried to renounce it & was a Soviet spy), & thus his patriotism - this smear made it into Newsweek, where it was given serious treatment

    since the 1990s, a GOP goal has been to delegitimize &, if possible, unseat any democratically elected Democratic president

    they did it pre-emptively to Gore in Florida, & they actually impeached Clinton

    the attacks on Obama are repugnant, but they are not novel or unique, nor are they in the mainstream the way the attacks on President Clinton and the First Lady were

    good god, even the blog where P^MA was born will not allow any comments about Obama's supposedly Kenyan birth &/or supposedly dual U.S./Indonesian citizenship

    by contrast, my mother, 75 at the time, was an avid reader of the Starr Report, a runaway best-seller when it was published

    Parent

    Take my word for it - it was that bad. (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:17:10 PM EST


    Parent
    he certainly was (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    on nutty right wing websites that no one took seriously.  

    Parent
    Maybe you don't remember (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    ... the daily discussion of conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's suicide on national talk radio programs (Limbaugh, Liddy, Ollie North, etc.), where several million listeners took those conspiracy theories very seriously.

    Parent
    and on the Chris Matthews show... (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    I really am worried about your memory, Capt!!!

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    They opposed virtually every one of his proposals during his first term, and only became marginally more cooperative in his second term, particularly after they got burned in the '95 shutdown/showdown and their subsequent losses in the '96 election.

    Parent
    see comment (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    #30

    Parent
    See comment number 81 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    Not that kooky conspiracy theories are any measure of how much cooperation a POTUS received from the opposition party.

    Parent
    as did FDR (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    for that matter.  Economy was not as "difficult" either.

    Parent
    Cal 1942 v. Koshembos (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    Topic: Clinton.

    Go!

    Parent

    You used to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    ... one of those kids in the back of the class yelling, "Fight, ... fight, ... fight"?

    ... weren't you?

    Parent

    It sounds like the kind of kid (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    who went with "Let's you and him fight.  I'll hold your coat".

    Parent
    this started out as a reasonable (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    discussion
    would it be to much to ask for that to continue and for you to make whatever point you have to make without name calling?

    Parent
    Yeah ... ABG's comment ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    ... (that I was responding to) was a "reasonable discussion".

    Pffttt ...

    Parent

    I was just kidding by the way (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    sort of.

    I just want to see someone other than me battle it out.  People are bored with my battles.

    Parent

    oh lord ... while I suspected him of just being (none / 0) (#162)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:00:24 PM EST
    ANOTHER 1 of that big subset of big credentialed college grads who fit the class of 'my Ivy sh*t doesn't stink', that complete piece of crap AHIP-care welfare drove all nails into my coffin labeled HOPE.

    (BTW - while Ivy grads are a small % of the population, there are a lot of them, and I know a LOT of decent Ivy grads ... I even sleep with 1)

    For decades the professional managerial ba$e of the Democratic Party has been able to afford little compromise after little compromise. For this 'ba$e', coming from the TOP 20% of income, they really really haven't been hit with the reality that there is a highway into poverty and NOT a sidewalk out. (Suze Orman)

    The teetering at the top ba$e can shout "lessor of two evil" all they want - and it ain't too hard, given how unhinged NewtMitt PerryPalin have been and are - BUT -

    they better HOPE lots of busy busy people see the pretty HOPE sign and persuaded to show up against the boot stompers.

    EVERYTHING 0bummer & his crowd say makes me ill - I expected raygun-cheney to lie, see, cuz they're all thieves and how the hell else can they steal?

    I can't take anymore of the DLC - Third Way sell outs, and they will get NO pennies or dimes, NO seconds of time, NO votes - and plenty of

    'Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt'

    rmm.  

    Comments at 200 (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:44:52 AM EST
    This thread is closed.

    The Long Game | 201 comments (201 topical)