Clinton or Reagan UPDATED

Paul Krugman has another masterpiece in the New York Times.  I really have to give him credit, because was one of the very few members of the "commentariat" that was able to cover the Democratic primary without demonizing Hillary Clinton and blindly praising Barack Obama.

He repeatedly criticized Obama's position on health care and criticized him for attacking Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the right, including print and radio ads that were strikingly familiar to the right-wing's "Harry and Louise" ads that helped defeat the 1993 Clinton health care plan.

He also defended Hillary Clinton when the media and Democrats were piling on her over her comments on LBJ's role in the civil rights movement.  In Hate Spring Eternal, he reminded us that Democratic candidates had often been treated this way in the past and that Senator Obama could expect similar treatment should he become the party's nominee.

In today's The Obama Agenda, Krugman compares Obama's campaign to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign.  Obama has tried to distance himself from the Clinton years and sought to compare himself to the transformational Ronald Reagan:

In his piece, Krugman compares Obama's message to Clinton's and Reagan's and comes to an interesting conclusion:

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he's definitely looking Clintonesque.

His economic plan and his message of change are very Clintonian.  The similarities, he observed, are "almost scary."  While Reagan ran as unabashed ideological conservative, Obama, like Clinton in 1992, is running as a candidate who can transcend the traditional partisan differences.

And what about all that DNC-style triangulation and centrism that sends liberal activists through the roof?  Obama has that one down, as well:

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals'. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration's behest.


In his analysis of Obama's new general election ad, Marc Ambinder touched on this as well.  In this ad, among other things, Obama touts his efforts to reform welfare, citing a 1997 law he helped pass in the Illinois senate.  First, the ad:

According to Marc Ambinder, that law merely brought Illinois in compliance with the new welfare reform law signed by President Clinton in August 1996, a law which Obama had apparently opposed.

So why is the Clinton-Reagan comparison so important?  Obama seeks to be the transformational president that he perceives Reagan, but not Clinton, to have been.  Yet, he is running a campaign that is very Clintonian in its message and policy.  Well, according to Paul Krugman, historians agree with Obama's characterization of Clinton and Reagan.  That his campaign is mimicking Clinton's is an ominous sign:

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn't too clear about what that change would involve.

Perhaps this really isn't so much about Clinton and Obama as it is about all Democrats and the progressive movement.  The most ideologically liberal candidates never gets nominated by Democrats.  Sometimes we flirt with them (Dean), sometimes we take them seriously (Edwards), sometimes we dismiss them (Kucinich).  But we always end up nominating a candidate with an eye on the general election.  Is this just the nature of our two parties?  One demanding ideological perfection, the other more tolerant of straying to the center?  Will we ever have a primary campaign in which our candidates argue over who is the most liberal?  That might just be transformational.

[UPDATED at 11:25 pm (EST) by Psychodrew]

Marc Ambinder--and I--may have been wrong on Obama's stand on the 1996 welfare reform bill.

From the New York Times:

During the presidential campaign, she has faced little challenge on the issue, in large part because Mr. Obama has supported the 1996 law. “Before welfare reform, you had, in the minds of most Americans, a stark separation between the deserving working poor and the undeserving welfare poor,” Mr. Obama said in an interview. “What welfare reform did was desegregate those two groups. Now, everybody was poor, and everybody had to work.”

Mr. Obama called the resulting law “an imperfect reform.” Like Mrs. Clinton, he called for an expansion of government-provided health care, child care and job training to assist women making the transition from welfare to work — programs he says he helped expand in Illinois as a state senator.

Asked if he would have vetoed the 1996 law, Mr. Obama said, “I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing.”

Thanks to Lakrosse for pointing this out.

Display:


Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 8)

I can take it. Just don't kick me in the shin.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM EST

Good point... (2.00 / 2)

And you know what? In many ways, Barack Obama is MORE "Clintonian" (as in Bill) than Hillary Clinton. I've always suspected that beneath the "centrist" veneer that Mark Penn and the other DC strategists had crafted for Hillary, she was really a strong progressive at heart. And ultimately in the primary, Hillary broke free from the "centrist" BS to become her true progressive self.

I really hope Barack Obama takes notes from not just Bill, but from Hillary as well. He doesn't have to sell his soul to the DLC to win. He can win by just being true to himself.

Ask Al Gore. Ask John Kerry. Ask Hillary Clinton. It's true.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point... (2.00 / 1)

They spent too much time on that "Ready from Day One" bullshit instead of letting Hillary be Hillary.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They never properly apologized for the war. (none / 0)

They never distanced themselves from the Bush years. They ran for reelection, for reinstatement of the Clintons, in a year in which everybody just wants to throw out the bums.  They weren't new at a time when people wanted new.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (none / 0)

nice diary Drew.  Good feel for Krugman.


by slynch on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

tip jar (2.00 / 2)

very good analysis. It is so ironic how true this is. Whats more is that the Daily Kos hates the Clintons for their centrism, yet he is being just as DLC centrist as Clinton on FISA, the death penalty, and guns. but Obama actually claims in his book Audacity of Hope that he supported welfare reform.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:39:34 PM EST

Re: tip jar (2.00 / 2)

Really?  He supported welfare reform?  Marc Ambinder must have gotten that wrong.  I looked around for another source on that while I was writing this--I don't like sourcing only to a blog--but I couldn't find anything.

Thanks.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tip jar (2.00 / 1)

you can read this about Obama's support for welfare reform. He also talked about it in Audacity of Hope.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (2.00 / 1)

I'm updating right now.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tip jar (none / 0)

Daily Kos hates the Clintons for their centrism, yet he is being just as DLC centrist as Clinton on FISA, the death penalty, and guns.

That's why he's being eviscerated this week at Kos.

Drew and Lakrosse, I assume because he's looking more D-L-C than K-O-S (in short, as Drew says, more "Clintonesque"), that's a good thing in you guys' book.  Right?


by spunkmeyer on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You assume wrong. (2.00 / 2)

First, Krugman used the term Clintonesque.

Second, I'm not advocating DLC politics.  In 2004, I was a big fan of Gov. Dean and I wanted to support him, but I just didn't think he was electable.  I always had my eye on the general election.  It's the same reason why I was uncomfortable with John Edwards.  I loved every single word he said (except for the anti-Hillary crap), but I just thought he wouldn't get elected.

So, I'm not a big advocate of the DLC.  I don't understand what you mean by K-O-S, but my problems with Kos are completely unrelated to anything mentioned in this diary.  He was on Meet the Press last year with former Rep. Harold Ford (who lost the Kentucky Senate race in 2006).  They had a liberal-DLC debate and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Kos had to say.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You assume wrong. (none / 0)

You mean the 2006 Tennessee Senate race?


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

I'm not so good at geography.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You assume wrong. (2.00 / 1)

Help me out here - as I've said before, you're one of the few in this place whose opinions deserve a little attention.  Reason is so much more appealing than vitriol.

But if you're anti-DLC and pro-progressive - why did you back Hillary in the primary?

This ain't a dig - I'd really like to hear your perspective on the question.


by spunkmeyer on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

May I also answer? (2.00 / 4)

Originally, I was NOT a Hillary supporter. In fact, I was hoping and praying in 2006 that AL GORE would run. He had already broke free from the DLC, and I just thought it was time for him to win (again) the office he was supposed to have won in 2000.

But early last year, I grew impatient and jumped on the    Obama bandwagon for a while. But then, I became disillusioned and jumped back to "Draft Gore". I wanted a real progressive, and I saw that in Al Gore.

So why did I ultimately choose Hillary? When I did my own research and looked beyond the corporate media spin AND the Kos/Big Blog spin, I saw in Hillary a fierce progressive held back by a few stupid DC consultants. And while I didn't like the consultants, I picked Hillary hoping that she would soon break free.

And ultimately, she did after she realized they cost her Iowa. Hillary became that strong progressive when she spoke up for universal health care, promoted a climate & energy plan of my dreams, pushed the economic discussion to the left, and became the working-class person's advocate I knew she really was.

Does that make sense?


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, spunk. (2.00 / 4)

As I said, I vote with an eye on the general election.  I really liked Dean in 2004.  I didn't really get behind him because I thought that Democrats would never be brave enough to nominate him and that the GOP would scare us into voting for Bush.  He was the only candidate who really inspired me, so I stayed neutral.

This cycle, were I only voting on ideas, I probably would have gone with Edwards.  What made me nervous about him was that he seemed so different from four years ago.

I went with Hillary because I agreed with her AUMF vote and I respected her refusal to apologize.  (Disclosure--I'm center-right on foreign policy).  I saw her as pragmatic and willing to work incrementally towards change.  I found that approach more realistic than Edwards "we need to shake up Washington."  I also liked that she wasn't really very flashy.  I loved her in the debates.  And I've been a big admirer of her for a very long time.  I started out liking Obama, but he just didn't convince me.  I remember watching people get excited at some of his speeches, wishing I could get that excited too.  He just never sold me.  By the time December rolled around, the tension between the candidates had risen so much that my position hardened.

I have to admit there were personal issues for me, as well.  As a gay man, I really identified with her battles against gender stereotypes.  

I guess I'm one of those Democrats I was talking about in the last paragraph of my diary.  I would love a single-payer health care system, a truly progressive tax code, real education reform, government policies that empowered the poor, and fair trade that protects workers and the environment.  But at the same time, I've always been afraid of nominating a candidate who runs on those ideas.  


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And there lies the difference. (2.00 / 1)

(Disclosure--I'm center-right on foreign policy).  

Nothing wrong with that.  I can respect that.  But it does sharply define the difference between those who could support Hillary whole-heartedly and those who were incensed.

Full disclosure: I used to be a Republican hawk, back in the Reagan days.  Funny.  Reading the diary, I was reminded of 1980 when I voted for the first time, for Ronald Reagan.  A few years later, my boss and I had, as a separate project, set up a 501c to raise money for the displaced peoples of Nicaragua.  Then the Oliver North thing broke and ruined everybody's fun.  I was a hardcore hawk until the Berlin Wall fell down, and then I felt free to separate myself from the social conservative looney-tunes, and to start voting for somebody like Bill Clinton who would offer health care.  Which I never got.

I'll admit, there are some times that I am absolutely ashamed to call myself a Democrat.  The 2002 AUMF vote was one such day.  I was angrier at the Democrats that voted for it than at the Republicans.  I expect dogmatic hawks to vote for stuff like that.  But I also had this perhaps unrealistic hope that the loyal opposition would actually OPPOSE something so gloriously and magnificently and tragically destructive.  I believe it will take a full generation for the full damage to our country's stature and influence to be realized.  Pax Americana, pissed away by the profligate idiocy of Bush and the spineless collaboration of many Congressional Dems.

Drew, I don't think the Clintons ever believed, as you may believe, that the 2002 AUMF was a right vote.  I have too much regard for their intelligence to think that.  They just calculated it was safer, as Obama is calculating it is safer to vote for civil telcom immunity.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And there lies the difference. (2.00 / 2)

Drew, I don't think the Clintons ever believed, as you may believe, that the 2002 AUMF was a right vote.

I disgree.  Read her floor speech.  It's brilliant.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have read her floor speech many times. (none / 0)

I'm sure you have had this argument before, so there is no point in rehashing it.  She inserted the usual caveats to cover her ass, but in the end she voted for the AUMF, and it was a vote for war, and everybody knew it, despite all those caveats.  And none of it was necessary.  Even if Saddam DID have WMDs (I assumed he had poison gas, at the very least), Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, everybody knew this, and as long as Bin Laden was loose, that required all our attention.  It was a clear distraction from pressing foreign policy needs, and a needless one that ended up costing us enormously.


by Dumbo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You assume wrong. (2.00 / 3)

I won't speak for Drew, but coming from someone who considers himself a progressive for Hillary Clinton, I think she was to the left of Barack on many issues in this primary, and intially I had some problems with Barack's mutiple screwups with the gay community, and after I read his book, his thoughts on hot button social issues weren't particularly appealing to me.

But like I said, at the base of things, there is no way that Barack was to the left of Hillary on a majority of issues. I also supported Hillary because I admire her tenacity, her commitment to health care, and honestly, I think that she is a friend to the gay community with actions and words where someone like Richardson (dropping the fag bomb on national radio) and Obama (McClurkin, Meeks, Newsom flap) aren't.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quick question (none / 0)

One thing I have noticed is the gay community seemed to be very big backers of Clinton.  I never truly understood why, I didn't, does anyone have polling to show how the gay community split in the primary, and what where the primary reasons?  From where I sat, it didn't look like anyone tackled gay marriage as a serious issue, and I don't think any candidate was pro gay marriage, so guess i was just out of the loop.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quick question (2.00 / 2)

I feel very detached from the gay community, so I speak only for myself.  I think that her gender a lot to do with it.

Also, for me, I was sixteen and REALLY struggling when Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992.  When he talked about treating gays and lesbians with dignity and respect, it meant a lot to me.  It was something that I really needed to hear.  That may be part of her appeal, as well.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok. I wasn't going to say this. (2.00 / 1)

But there also has been a big divide between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement.  I don't have any concerns about Obama on this, but there is some anti-gay affect in the African-American community.

I heard an AA caller on NPR a few weeks ago express his disgust at the civil rights movement being compared to the gay rights movement.  Some gay voters may have been reluctant to support Obama for that reason.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Arggh! (none / 0)

Had to run out to a screening just as I posted, and clearly missed what looks like a great conversation.

Tips to all.  Here's to more chats like this as we move forward, as opposed to the blather that's been dominating here lately.  Sorry I missed out on it.

Cheers, folks.

Dems in '08!


by spunkmeyer on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tip jar (1.00 / 3)

SPUNKMEYER BUSTED  WITH SOCKPUPPETS!!! what is the community going to do about it?

SPUNK, d0 you want tell everyone about your 2 additional handles AKA sockpuppets here?
calcetines
calcetines2

View Spunkmeyers 1st ever post on mydd look at the title on it http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/11/9 3155/1000/11#11

NOW see his two handles titles he used to pump up to TU and HR rate and TR my comments and see the same unique title back.

calcetines
calcetines2  - View his 2nd handle pumping up the 1st to TU ( check the title out)http://www.mydd.com/user/calcetines2/com ments


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:14:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tip jar (none / 0)

aliveandstinkin', you are so funny!!! :) Hugs!!!


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now kos is mad at Obama too (2.00 / 2)

from a diary today we find kos decided not to give a dime to Obama, just to downticket candidates.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

tho I believe you, (none / 0)

I didn't find it on that diary. Show me where it says that. I will write a diary calling him out on it there.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops - wrong diary. Here it is (none / 0)

Try this link.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have not seen such a political baby (2.00 / 1)

since Newt Gingrich went crazy over the back of the plane snub. I wrote this comment and I hope he takes it to heart. I can't wait to see him once Obama is in office. He will treat him just like or worse than Bill Clinton.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't speak for everybody on DailyKos (none / 0)

(who can?) but I can tell you, I didn't hate the Clintons for their Centrism.  I hated them for the war.  That's pretty simple.  Somehow, supporting Bush on the war became centrist, and when that happened, a lot of us that were fine with centrists lost patience.  

I know I lost patience with hawkish centrists the day in August 2005 I had to defend Cindy Sheehan from my own senator, Dianne Feinstein.  Cindy Sheehan's vigil in Crawford was a huge turning point because of the many centrist Dems that were quick to condemn or trivialize her.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

when Markos and the Daily Kos (2.00 / 3)

bash Clinton for his economic policies, his welfare policies, his crime policies, and then dismiss his twin victories in the most insulting way, falsely crediting Ross Perot even tho the exit polls showed that pro-gay pro-choice anti-NAFTA Ross Perot took equally in both 1992 and 1996 and encouraging his kind of revisionism by peddling it everyone and going on about how Clinton didn't get over 50% completely leaving out the fact that Perot actually denied Clinton that goal twice. Almost everyone on that site believes the Perot myth, and its their excuse to say "oh the DLC and centrism never worked" and bash Clinton, despite the fact that the data contradicted their bullshit. Hell, people on that site even bash Clinton for Monica. Markos teaches everyone to hate the Clintons for their centrism,  using that meme to do it, and bashing him for welfare reform, cutting crime, etc. he would rather us nominate candidates in the mold of Michael Dukakis and George McGovern, which is why he trashed Hillary and acted like Obama was the messiah.


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when Markos and the Daily Kos (1.00 / 1)

I really disliked most of your post.  But one thing that stood out, pretending Ross Perot didn't have a huge impact on Clinton's victory in 1992  is revisionist history at best, downright dishonesty at worst.  It was a big factor, lets not deny history.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how was it a "huge" factor? (2.00 / 2)

Find me any data that shows it so, because I cannot.  the Daily Howler cannot, Liberal Avenger cannot, this guy could not, Pew found Perot doing just what he was: getting Bush closer. You are nothing new. Saying Perot changed the winner: THAT is revisionism. there is just on data which supports it. You and all the conservative and Kossacks forget that in 1992 when the election was, Bush was extrememly unpopular with approvals in the 40's and 30's, as you can see. America clearly was not going to re-elected him. No party has ever been sent back to the White House with such low approvals: Stevenson couldn't win in 1952 with Truman so unpop, HHH couldn't in 1968 with Johnson, Ford couldn't in 1976, neither could Carter in 1980, and Bush in 1992 was no exception. Perot was not a conservative: look at him on the issues and he clearly was closer to Clinton than Bush. He split the change vote. If you wanna see what the race looked like when Perot was out, which was from july-October, just look here. It was like that from July to October 1992.  And again, as I posted before, the exit polls showed that Perot voters would not have gone to Bush more than Clinton. This "CW" that has been peddled for 15 years is nothing more than a myth because right wingers were so angry 62% of the electorate rejected them. I'm sad you fell for their myth too.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are kidding right? (none / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat es_presidential_election,_1992

18.9% is not a huge factor? Exit polls?  Like the ones that proclaimed Al Gore the president of teh United States?  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1992 was out of the margin of error. (2.00 / 2)

and 2000 was well within the margin of error. Clinton won by 5.6%, Gore by .5%.  

Second, just saying Perot got 18.9 percent alone, in a vacuum doesn't mean anything in terms of who the winner was. You're acting like he elected the guy. The only thing behind the number, the exit poll data clearly show Perot did not swing the outcome. Webster's defines "factor" as "one that actively contributes to the production of a result." Given the data available, a more reliable way than your way to measure, Perot clearly was not that. You also can't name a reason Bush was likely to get re-elected with those approvals I showed you. Moreover, for Bush to hit 50%, he'd need to win Perot's voters by 66-33 assuming they all vote. being that he was a change candidate closer to Clinton on the issues, and that not all of his voters are gonna vote in his absence, also given Bush's abysmal approval ratings, that clearly was not happening. For Bush to get to 50%, he's need 12.6 out of Perot's 18.9 which is .66. Clinton would have only needed 7 more points to get to 50%, and 7 divided by 18.9 is 37 percent. The math for Bush was IMPOSSIBLE.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1992 was out of the margin of error. (none / 0)

To assume Perot voters where for Clinton is an absurdity.   I am not saying it was THE factor, I am sating it was a big factor, which it was.  That is revisionist history to assume they would break for Clinton in any measure.  Clinton beat Bush by around 6 million votes.  Perot got almost 20 million votes.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but why would they have went Bush? (1.75 / 4)

and you can't even answer that with any statiscal evidence or even any good reason. The exit poll showed of those 20 million, at least 24 percent would have stayed home. Also, being that Perot was way ahead when Perot was out of the race which was from July-October, many more of them may not have come back out, and Clinton would have come out with a much larger percent. Yes Perot got 20 million. I never said they all or most would have gone to Clinton. But you also fail to produce how he was a factor, which means "one that actively contributes to the production of a result" in ANY way whatsoever to Clinton winning. You fail to give a reason why they would have broken for Bush. And you fail to say why they would have broken for him in enough number to give him a win. How is assuming they'd go Bush any more "absurb" than saying they'd go Clinton? I actually have statiscal data on my side when I show my point. You don't.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but why would they have went Bush? (1.00 / 1)

You are here, claiming that 20% of the vote has no affect on an election.  20% of the vote. 19 million voters out of just over 100 million, and you claim that has no impact.  They were REPUBLICANS, the majority would have voted party because that is what people in this country to overwhelmingly. You think these Fisa grand standers are not going to vote for Obama in November? Compare the platforms, Ross Perot, if he has party backing would have been the Republican nominee.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but why would they have went Bush? (1.00 / 1)

I guess is Nader got 20% of the vote you could claim that the majority of his voters might have voted for Bush, in this same fantasy land.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:38:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but why would they have went Bush? (1.66 / 3)

well, just like the only available data, the exit polls showed a plurality of Nader voters going for Gore in a two way contest, the exit polls of 1992 showed Perot voters splitting their votes between Clinton and Bush 38-38-24 staying home. I use one standard. You use zero.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

any evidence or data? (1.66 / 3)

or anything to back up your claims on Ross Perot voters being Republicans in large enough numbers to switch the outcome? In case your forget, Reagan got 1/4 of Democrats against a President with similar approval ratings. Seriously, you have zero statisical evidence or anything for your claims. I do, and its all posted above. Why would anyone ever listen to you when you say things. you may want to note that Ross Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, against NAFTA, for raising the gas tax to cut the deficit, for defense conversion, not really a conservative platform.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:42:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but why would they have went Bush? (1.66 / 3)

also, where do you even get off claiming his voters were Republican? because Hannity says it?


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are kidding right? (1.00 / 2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat es_presidential_election,_1992

18.9% is not a huge factor? Exit polls?  Like the ones that proclaimed Al Gore the president of the United States?  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Umm, the exit polls WERE right! (2.00 / 4)

Al Gore DID win in 2000. The Supreme Court stole the election from him and handed it on a silver platter to Dubya.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they also proclaimed (1.75 / 4)

both Ronald Reagan and Clinton the winners twice you know.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated for blatant HR abuse (1.50 / 2)

Perot almost certainly helped Bill Clinton but even if he hadn't there's no way this is 0 rated post.


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

he posted that twice, thats why I HR'd it (1.00 / 1)

I'm sorry. He posted the same thing twice, with the other one here. And I've actually posted data that indicated he did NOT help Bill Clinton. What do you base your assertion off, considering that spin didn't even get started until the washington times started it. Read about it at the Daily Howler. Face it: Ross Perot didn't help Clinton. I know that because its peddled everywhere, its hard not to believe, but remember it is Hannity and Limbaugh and the GOP who pushed the meme. Even Sean Wilentz in his new book clearly calls it out for the bullshit it was.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he posted that twice, thats why I HR'd it (none / 0)

You troll rated every one of my comments because you didn't like what it said, Same back at you.  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:30:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

because you just say things (none / 0)

and cite no data, and don't back up your smears against Bill Clinton. You deserve to be hide rated. If I repeated GOP smears about our election victories, which are backed up by no data and just bullshit, I'd expect TR's. But I don't do that. YOu do.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he posted that twice, thats why I HR'd it (2.00 / 1)

you were smearing the only Democratic President to be elected in 30 years using a GOP talking point, that is factually and statisically and logically BANKRUPT. I continue to cite data and evidence, you cite nothing. the stuff I cite CLEARLY contradicts everything you have said, yet you keep peddling your anti-Clinton LIES.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton lost (none / 0)

Let the hate and anger flow.  Do you feel better now. Its not smearing president Clinton.  Pretending 20% of the vote didn't matter is ludicrous.  You want numbers, 20%. that is your number.  

There is no reason to smear Bill Clinton, he already ruined his legacy this year.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:44:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

stop looking at 20% in a vacuum (2.00 / 1)

and not using any logic. You are saying "Ross Perot got 18.9%. That MUST have changed the outcome." Yet you base that in NOTHING. WHY must it have changed the outcome? You cannot look at that number alone. You aren't even making a logical connection. You are saying "Because P happened, Q must be true." Yet, you don't look at the causes of why P happened. The exit polls, the only real measure available to even attempt to measure says that P happened because he siphoned votes equally from both candidates. You make no logical connection at all as to why that 20% happened. It happened because Ross Perot was able to take a lot of votes and they came in equal numbers from both candidates. It did not change who the winner of the election was. I'm sorry, but all data and evidence points squarely in that direction. I made my logical connection by finding out the cause of P, which was that Ross Perot was able to get a lot of votes from both candidates, and that contradicts your Q from the P.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, Lakrosse. (none / 0)

Kos wanted Edwards.

And a lot of those criticisms of the Clintons are true.  The economy under Bill Clinton was magnificent, but other than that (and that was important, no question), it was a lackluster scandal-fest.  Most notably for the fact that we got NO HEALTHCARE REFORM.  That's why I voted for Bill.  Twice.  I got zip.  And that's why I groaned every time somebody said Hillary would give us healthcare if she got the opportunity. What, eight years wasn't enough time for them?

I protested on Wilshire Blvd. along with thousands of other people for Bill Clinton during the house impeachment vote.  I earned the right to be critical.

The Clintons are like having sex with your ex-wife.  It was good at the time, you enjoyed it, you might even remember it fondly at times, but you don't want to repeat it because there's just TOO MUCH BAGGAGE.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh?! (2.00 / 4)

And a lot of those criticisms of the Clintons are true.  The economy under Bill Clinton was magnificent, but other than that (and that was important, no question), it was a lackluster scandal-fest.

So when did we start blaming Democrats for REPUBLICAN errors? Those "scandals" Crybaby Markos whines about were MANUFACTURED by the right. There was nothing to Vince Foster, "Travelgate", Whitewater, or even "Monica-gate".

See, this is a problem that Democrats still have. We've internalized the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" that the Rethuglicans spread. So now it's not the GOP's and the insurance industry's fault that they smeared universal health care, but Bill & Hillary's for being "secretive". So now it's not that the right manufactured worthless "scandals" to distract Americans from what really mattered, but Bill & Hillary's for being so "scandal-prone".

I'm so sick and tired of this Clinton Derangement Syndrome bringing down Democrats. And really, think about this. Don't you think the GOP will do this to us again when they manufacture BS against Obama and use it to turn us against him?


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see why the GOPers (2.00 / 1)

have such a good time bashing the Clintons. Its just jolly ol good time fun to bash them. I mean, they couldn't be all things to all people! And look at loonies like Brandon. Just like all the other Clinton bashers, just says stuff with no basis in anything whatsoever. Seriously, I'd bet any Republican who called the Reagan admin "scandal-fest" would be booted from the party. BUt that discipline is why they survive.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when Markos and the Daily Kos (2.00 / 2)

you are fucking dead on.  excellent post.


by slynch on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

as you can see, Brandon TR'd me (2.00 / 1)

in our little dialogue about this. If you'd do me the favor of uprating me so I can get back my full privileges I'd be thankful.


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as you can see, Brandon TR'd me (none / 0)

no problem.  Doing it right now.


by slynch on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't speak for everybody on DailyKos (none / 0)

I think the problems is trying to fit everyone into catagories.  X on its should not make you a centrist dem, and Y should not make you a liberal dem on its own.  Overall records have to be looked at imo, not singular issues.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. n/t (2.00 / 1)


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Obama's strategy working? (2.00 / 1)

The last Rasmussen poll indicated that almost seventy percent of the American considered Obama to be politically liberal.  It would be interesting to see the percentage that sees him that way in the next poll; if it's unchanged, then his move to the center (or perhaps he may be a moderate to conservative dem after all, a notion that I reject as I consider both him and Hillary to be to my left) must not be working.

Obama may be drawing blood on McCain though; the last poll also showed that sixty percent of the country saw McCain as politically conservative.  It'll be interesting to see if that number has risen after his numerous flip-flops.


by Blazers Edge on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:05:00 AM EST

it could be worse, (2.00 / 1)

and I bet that the number will be at least 5-15 points less in the next poll. That it what he will need to get elected. And if it stays the same, why would moving away from the center do any better? Also, standing in the polls matters. if Obama keeps his leads in the polls, then his strategy is more likely working than not working. Also, given an amazing team like Obama's, why would he be doing what he's doing if its not politically helpful?


by Lakrosse on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it could be worse, (none / 0)

Am I talking to Diamond Jay by the way?


by Blazers Edge on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Reagan UPDATED (none / 0)

I like Krugman's articles on the economy, though it's totally fair to point out he's been way too pessimistic (spent most of this decade predicting a disaster which never occurred--and even the current downturn isn't likely to be as bad or as prolonged as he thought would happen once Bush was elected).  He's Eyore.


by IncognitoErgoSum on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:10:01 AM EST

Re: Clinton or Reagan UPDATED (none / 0)

I like Krugman's articles on the economy, though it's totally fair to point out he's been way too pessimistic (spent most of this decade predicting a disaster which never occurred--and even the current downturn isn't likely to be as bad or as prolonged as he thought would happen once Bush was elected).  He's Eyore.


by IncognitoErgoSum on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:10:45 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.