All this silly far-left screeching about Obama is what happened to Clinton too, and who won two

[RBInMaine]

elections and would damn well have won a third if he could have run again? Michael Moore outright called him a "Republican." He was and has been demonized by the far left over and over and over again. And he WON re-election, his presidency is considered a great and historic period of economic achievement, and it enjoys an historical 60% approval rating.

The majority of the nation is with Obama on this. Obama's remarks in his press conference yesterday were spot on and a great civics and history lesson. The man is brilliant. In the last two years there has been TONS of pretty damn progressive accomplishment. Compromise is not "caving" and "capitulation." It is called actually GOVERNING.
The Pubs did indeed have to swallow a hell of lot of measures they don't like, and they had to compromise away permanency on the tax cuts for the rich. Let's get real here. PASS THE COMPROMISE NOW !

[joeprogressive]

1. Except Clinton stuck it to the rich, balanced the budget,

created 23 million jobs and produced one of the greatest economies ever. Oh yeah, he also fought for real health care reform. That's why Clinton won two terms. He compromised but he didn't completely shit on his base like Obama has done.

[RBInMaine]

2. "Shit on the base"? Are you nuts? Clinton was assailed by the "base" on welfare reform, NAFTA, and a

host of other policies. Michael Moore called him "the best Republican President we've ever had." And Clinton entirely tacked to the center and triangulated between the far left and right in his second two years. THAT is why he won his second term. He got the middle. And, did "HillaryCare" pass? No!
But "ObamaCare" damn well did, and it is a good start on that issue. Kindly come into reality.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RichGirl]

11. Republican rule????

You mean like 12 years of Reagan/Bush and another 8 years of GWB. Yeah, that really set things straight. Yep, all those disgruntled liberals in 2000 voting for Nader, getting "republican rule" brilliant move!

If our idea of a "new Democratic party" means it's more important to stick it to the rich than take care of the poor...that would be neither dem or rep but a party based on ego and stupidity.

Those of you who think Obama will lose in 2012 need to get your nose out of the computer and cable news and your own little circle of whiners and get out into the real world. Mature people know that nothing, NOTHING in life is ever perfect. If you look for perfect you get a lifetime of unhappiness. All we can do in any situation is choose what we think is best. If you can't see that in spite of the imperfections the democrat is the best choice...then go ahead and sit out 2012...feel smug about sending your empty message...and I hope you have job security or a really good pension.

[ipaint]

14. Yes and if there is something the upper middle class will not put up with

it is a reduction in their personal happiness. They will accept mediocre, unprincipled, halfassed deals on the devil's terms before ever allowing their happiness quotient to be cut. Standing on principle and fighting, like thinking, is painful. It hurts and most importantly may make them unhappy. Oh the horror.

[RichGirl]

22. Life is not black and white...

...it's mostly a lot of gray. I have a principle of not stealing...but if I saw someone starving I would steal in a heartbeat.

In this case, regarding the tax cuts, my principle says it's more important to care for those in need than to stick it to the rich. Don't assume your principles are the same as everyone elses.

[ipaint]

26. So requiring the rich to pay their fair share towards wars and the collective wealth of the all

citizens is now "sticking it" to them. Really? That's pretty radical black and white thinking.

You don't get a decent compromise without a hard fought battle. After 30 years of phony compromising moving the country to the right we are out of excuses. At some point soon you either stand on principle, fight and risk losing a battle or two or we turn into tea party nation.

[sweetapogee]

20. RichGirl, This

President is, I believe a one termer. Not only that, his eventual fall will spell disaster to the entire Democratic Party. Sorry if that offends but that is the situation. Clinton has one thing Obama doesn't and that is a personality that makes even his political enemy's like him at a personal level, a real positive. Obama on the other hand has one thing Clinton didn't have and that is a constant unemployment rate of +/- 10%, a real negative. The sooner we accept this and the sooner we plan for the future alternate plan B, the shorter the puke dominance over us will be.

Now, you tell me, how does President Obama convince the majority of voters to cast their ballots for him when 1 in 10 workers have been out of work for four freaking years? President Obama has one hope for reelection and that is to take the necessary steps to get the economy out of the shit can. Those necessary steps by the way will totally piss off his support base. This task will also be complicated by the fact that he has lost control of the house. The pukes are going to limit his successes, disagree? He frittered away his first two years ignoring the economy at the street level, relying on simply throwing money at the banking and auto industry and as a result we have seen the unemployment rate go up, not down. At this point it is almost too late to do anything about it. But he must now focus on the economy at the expense of just about every thing else. That is his only hope.

Here is one thing to think about. In 2008, President Obama received a large amount of support from college students. Many of those students will be finished with their studies in 2012 and receiving coupon books in the mail to use for their student loan payments. How many of those will be unemployed or underemployed and thus unable to support themselves never mind pay back a student loan? How do you convince that particular (red faced) voter to shout out "four more years"? Sometimes it is good to look beyond the tip of your nose for what we call a reality check, a little introspection i think it's called.

You think that dem voters have their heads embedded into the TV set. Maybe, but convince me that the foundation of the US economy is stable, that our cities and states have the funds to function even short term and that our manufacturing base is sound. I will be listening.

[RichGirl]

24. Why would I be offended by your OPINION.

My primary pet peeve is when people express their opinions as if they are facts. THEY AREN'T!!! None of us knows what tomorrow will bring so let's just get that straight.


..."how does President Obama convince the majority of voters to cast their ballots for him..."

These are YOUR words. Is this what you want from a president??? Do you want his top priority to be re-election??? Do you want him to spend his first term campaigning for his second term??? Do you want him to make decisions based on how many votes it'll get him???? Or do you want him to serve the people, all the people, the best way he believes he can. He is the president of the UNITED STATES not the president of the democratic party. I don't always agree with him but I trust him. The reason I trust him is because it's very obvious that he doesn't operate based on poll numbers, popularity, re-election or to advance his own career. The whole reason that politics has gotten so dirty is because politicians care more about their careers than serving the people. I would bet that many of the fighting dems in the senate are trying to save their own jobs by going against Obama. In the end enough will vote with him because it's the right thing to do, but they want the record to show they were against it so they can use it in their ads.

We have a president who puts people above politics and we are beating the crap out of him for it.

One thing we can all agree on is that he is a very intelligent person. If all he wanted was re-election he would know exactly how to do it.

[sweetapogee]

25. please.

put. down. the. bong.

I will grant you this, you are an interesting conversationalist, that you are.

Take care.

[BzaDem]

17. Are you sure that in the new Democratic party, Ben Nelson won't be a liberal?

When liberals stop voting for Democrats, Democrats move to the right to pick up centrist independents. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for some people understand. It is almost as if people make up a fantasy path to get what they want in their mind as a coping mechanism.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe for a minute that Obama will lose because of the left. (After all, in opposing Obama, you belong to the tiniest minority of the Democratic party since 1960.) I'm just stating that it seems counterproductive even considering your stated goal, since the new Democratic party will be MORE to the right than it was before you began.

[treestar]

36. True, why does the left NEVER learn?

Their nastiness and insistence that they are paramount NEVER drives the Democrats to the left. Do they not get that it does not work? Isn't insanity doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

[RichGirl]

3. He did all those things....but not over night.

And...by the way...Obama is not the president of the democratic party. His job is to do what's best for the country. Right now he is looking out for the people who are most directly effected by this economy...the people who have lost their jobs and have trouble feeding their families. Would you rather he focus on kissing liberal ass to insure his re-election???? That's not what I voted for.

Every day he talks to people who are suffering. What is he suppose to say to them? Sorry, I can't help you...I have to do what's best for ME.

[RBInMaine]

4. Oh yeah, and Clinton also COMPROMISED with Don't Ask Don't Tell. Did HE "shit on the base" too?

[CakeGrrl]

8. He largely gets a pass here so that

people can focus on what Obama ISN'T doing to repeal it.

[BlueIris]

34. Not from this Democrat he doesn't. But he does get credit

for sucking it up and admitting it was the biggest mistake of his entire presidency.

[RBInMaine]

5. How about the Lilly Leadbetter law? Is that "shitting on the base?" Get real.

[RichGirl]

10. The only reason Obama would be concerned about the base....

...is if his top priority was re-election. That's not change...that's same ole, same ole...politics as usual.

Has it occurred to anyone that when we voted for change, we got real change: a president who doesn't give a damn about polls or popularity or re-election...who cares more about doing the right thing than whether he's a one-termer or not? Is a president who spends his first four years campaigning for his second four years "change"?????

[Axrendale]

12. I will second this.

The President hasn't "lost touch" - he is simply sitting down to try and squeeze every last drop of policy success juice out of his term in office - and he has done a damn good job of it thus far too.

He will fight to keep office more than anything else because unlike so many other Presidents, he actually has a positive legacy to protect. And it only took him two years to achieve it.

[tavalon]

16. This is your idea of the right thing?

I have a DLC to sell you - real cheap!

[Fruittree]

7. Clinton fought for health care reform but didn't get it...And

wasn't what he fought for similar to what we got under Obama? As far as the jobs my understanding is that he was the lucky recipient of the .com bubble with all the high tech jobs which under Clinton's policies began to be shipped overseas...If you can explain - how does a president create jobs in an economy that's mainly dominated by the private sector? I thought it had more to do with a lot of good luck and the Fed manipulating money somehow..

[Dawgs]

21. +1. Obama shits on the base daily.

It's sad that some are still blind.

[ProSense]

23. "Except Clinton stuck it to the rich" Let's not rewrite history

What happened to that proposal is symptomatic of what happened to Clinton's approach to economic policy. During his campaign and first month in office, Clinton promised to deny tax deductions to firms that awarded their executives salaries over $1 million. "The tax code should no longer subsidize excessive pay of chief executives and other high executives," Clinton told business leaders at the White House. He defined "excessive" in true populist terms as "unrelated to the productivity of the enterprise." He also cited "the enormously increased rate of executive compensation in the last 12 years as compared with the compensation of workers."

But under pressure from the financial community, Clinton quietly backed off. In April, the administration announced a plan that was riddled with loopholes. For instance, CEO stock options would not be included in the $1 million limit, and firms could take a deduction on straight salaries over $1 million if stockholders approved.

link

Want to talk about the repeal of Glass Steagall?

[lamp_shade]

9. Well said. Kick and rec.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Word.

Thanks for posting. :kick:

[tavalon]

15. Well, good then.

Certainly, if Obama decides to run again, I will plug my nose and vote for him. Not because he is a good Democrat but because the alternative is bat shit crazy. And a primary challenge will get us bat shit crazy. But I have been fairly consistently disappointed with him. I'm extremely disappointed in him today.

[wndycty]

18. K&R

:kick:

[TheWebHead]

19. Clinton was fortunate in the fact that

there was basically no internet, there was no MSNBC, there was no liberal talk radio. There was nothing that galvanized and connected thought leaders to a population that viewed and repeated those beliefs besides television and newspaper.

[ElboRuum]

35. "galvanized and connected thought leaders"???

I hope you aren't talking about blogs, message boards, and self-appointed pundits, spokespeople, and (*gag*) tastemakers, because that would mean that the cacophonous noise of the blogosphere is what passes for modern thought. If this is the case then we are well and truly fucked.

[frylock]

27. silly, sanctimonious, loud far-lefties!!1

guess you forgot all about nader.. errrrrrrrr... the perot effect.

[Supersedeas]

39. don't let history get in the way of personality politics--history and policy can be so troublesome

better to just worship the 'guy' and ad hominem attack the rest

[Union Scribe]

28. Do you really think they're fretting about getting the cuts extended again

in two years? They know now all they have to do is hold something hostage and Dems will pay up. It's a de facto "permanent" cut, so don't think the GOP and their rich buddies are all broken up about their end of the "compromise."

[harun]

29. WTF good is winning re-election?

[niceypoo]

30. Clinton reversed supply side

He didn't embrace it, he got rid of it.

[Fyddlestyx]

31. Nice post.

Thanks for sharing. K&R:kick:

[Pisces]

32. We didn't have the 24/7 pundits analyzing every angry purists comments. Clinton was lucky

in this matter. Obama can't win no matter what he does. Our collective memory is short, and when this turns out well like the auto bailout, people will forgive and forget. He will win in a landslide

[Phx_Dem]

33. Yep. The far left is always screeching. They did with Clinton

and they're doing it with Obama. But now, when they're screeching abot Obama, they're idolizing Clinton who gave them DADT and NAFTA. ROLF. Ridiculous.

Tweety and Fineman referred to them as crazy, and they're right.

[ProudDad]

38. What's "Screechie"

is your broken record of sycophancy.

[Phx_Dem]

41. What's the matter? Don't you like hearing someone constantly bitching?

Yeah, well neither do I. Sadly, I've had to endure it you and the other whiners for 2 years (not counting all the Clinton years).

[ProudDad]

37. Yep and his 2nd term was a right-wing dream...

And Obama will get another probably (since the corporate capitalist masters will make sure Palin gets nominated)...

And he will pull 4 more years of the same corporate shit...

[Dinger]

40. Fuck That (nt)

[ljm2002]

42. Most of the so-called far-left screeching about Clinton...

...was about things like NAFTA, financial deregulation, welfare reform, etc.

Does it count for anything that the far-left screechers were CORRECT???

[tledford]

43. No. The far left, like Nixon and Eisenhower (compared to modern times) never counts. eom