Listen to Mario Cuomo

Mario Cuomo was on Face the Nation last week and gave a great reminder to all Americans and especially Democrats of what the country needs now.  In sum, he said America wants and needs, despite Senator Obama's rhetoric to the contary, everything we had in the years from 1993 -2000, to wit:


 > a strenthened and growing middle class
   > poverty shrinking; millions lifted out of poverty
   > 22 million new jobs
   > a balanced budget
   > a projected surplus into the trillions

He also spoke of this year's primary season, saying the whole process has been unfair and actually butchered.  He said it must be allowed to go to completion through all the remaining primaries and all the voters heard.  Cuomo emphasized that by its own design, the process is supposed to go on right up to and into the convention.

Although I don't necessarily agree with him on Clinton and Obama running together in the GE, I applaud Mario Cuomo for reminding everyone of the good times we had in the 90s and for calling out those so eager to dump one of the candidates before the process is even over.  Please click below if you missed his appearance on Face the Nation. main500251.shtml?id=4105147n&channel =/sections/ftn/videoplayer3460.shtml

Tags: Cuomo, Democrats, Election, Primary (all tags)



Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

I agree we need those things... but this isn't the 90's. Sorry. I liked the 90's, too, but it's gone, and nothing can bring that back- not even getting Senator Clinton to be the nominee.

by ragekage 2008-05-27 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

No one said this is the 90s.  We can certainly learn from our past successes and build on that.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

Clinton should have gotten out after Wisconsin.  Is she had we wouldn't be so divided.  

Also, Hillary Clinton was first lady during the 1990's.  I don't blame Laura Bush for screwing up Iraq and by the same token I don't give Hillary Clinton any credit for the successes of the 1990's.    

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 06:02AM | 0 recs
comparing laura to hillary

is quite appalling

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-27 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: comparing laura to hillary

Why? The poster didn't say they were the same thing.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:36AM | 0 recs
Laura wrote a childrens book

and ran a task force on Gangs.

Hillary was much more involved.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-27 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

and when Obama loses the general election, you'll probably be blaming Hillary for that too.

p.s.  When Ted Kennedy ran for president, did he drop out before the convention? Were there calls from the pundits to do so?  Who was calling for Gary Hart to drop out?  Jerry Brown?  Anyone else?  All of these guys weren't doing as well as Hillary, and nobody was calling for them to get out. As Mario pointed out, the primary process by its own design is supposed to go right up to the convention.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:23AM | 0 recs

Point is never before has the punditocracy called for any candidate to drop out before the convention.  She should go right up to convention, with her millions of voters behind her, where their power will give her leverage, for example, to make sure real universal health care is in Party platform.  If Obama were smart, he'd drop his nowheresville plan, and adopt the Clinton/Edwards model.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:42AM | 0 recs

Point is never before has the punditocracy called for any candidate to drop out before the convention.

The fact that the Clinton campaign says something doesn't make it true. itics/27checkpoint.html?_r=1&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs

In previous election campaigns, there may have been behind-the-scenes-negotiating. And the article was able to find one (!) pundit who suggested a candidate drop out.  This is what you call apples and oranges!!  There's no way this compares to what's happening now.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

Yes, I will be blaming Hillary if Obama loses.  She stayed in this race way too long.

P.S. You are confused.  The DNC choose to front load the primaries as a way to make sure the process didn't go right up to the convention.  You should google "Super Duper Tuesday" if you don't believe me.  I hope that clears it up for you.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 06:51AM | 0 recs

so much for buck stopping with nominee.

speaking of dividing party:  that's exactly what obama's campaign has done.

If not for Obama, AAs and blue collars would be united right now, and we'd be on our way to a landslide victory.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 07:02AM | 0 recs

I am not the nominee.  I will lay the blame where I think it should be.  Anyone not named Clinton would have left the race after losing 12 contests in a row.  There is no reason for her to stay in this race.  I am glad it will be all over next week.   I hope Hillary gets a primary challenger.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 07:13AM | 0 recs

In the past 2-3 months, Hillary has got more votes than Obama, and won more states.  She polls better against McCain in the GE.  She has the momentum, not Obama.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 07:30AM | 0 recs

You are confused.  Obama has won over 30 contests.  You can do your own research if you don't believe me.  

Momentum ebbs and flows.  If your best argument for Hillary is that she has a two point lead over McCain in May then that isn't much of an argument.  Who do you think is going to be convinced by such a shallow argument?  The Superdelegates are professional politicians.  They won't be swayed by easily debunked talking points.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 07:34AM | 0 recs

well, we'll just have to see how the GE goes. good luck to you!

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 07:45AM | 0 recs
More lies from a dead-ender

Newsweek - Feb 4, 1980

But some worried among themselves whether their solicitations were really meant to retire back debts preparatory to an early Kennedy secession from the race.  A reporter put their question to him directly: would he withdraw? Kennedy's head jerked angrily around.  "No!" he barked, disappearing into a waiting elevator.

by JJE 2008-05-27 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo
Do you blame Eleanor Roosevelt for World War Two?
Was Eleanor Rooosevelt qualified to be President over Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 or Jack Kennedy or Dickie Nixon.
by nkpolitics 2008-05-27 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo
Bill Clinton is not running for President this time, Hillary Rodham is. Hillary is truly her own woman; she carved her own political philosophies and values for herself and found a soulmate and life partner in this charismatic charmer and gifted political strategist from Arkansas.
Let's take our "win the primary at all costs" hats off and "win the White House at all costs" hats off for just a second and look at the changes that were experienced by people of all races, economic status, and geography during the 1990's.
If either Clinton were still in this game for only money and power one would have to question their reasoning as they have found much better and less stressful ways to make that happen by running a foundation and being a Senator from New York. Cuomo gets it, Hillary is in this for all Democrats and all citizens (not just the cool new-agers who cling to their youtube, viral marketing, and e-spam for their identity and "branding") -- Way to go Mario -- please tell all your friends it's time to pony up for Hillary Rodham.
by pan230oh 2008-05-27 06:08AM | 0 recs
Obama's win at all costs strategy
  1. trash the 1990s and all Democrats who have come before you
  2. Call everybody racist
  3. blame your state losses on Fox News, insult the voters of KY and WV by calling them hicks
  4. Ignore MI and FL, risking your need for a G.E. victory, because at least in the G.E. you won't have to lose to a woman.
by catfish2 2008-05-27 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's win at all costs strategy
"Call everybody racist"
Is this snark?
Serious question.
by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's win at all costs strategy

Snark is a good thing. Please don't equate it with petulance. Even in jest.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's win at all costs strategy
Lol. I was taking my cure from the Alegre flap today where Jerome ruled that asking if a diary is snark isn't trolling, and if you troll-rate a question about snark, you will lose privileges.
No snark, it's true.
by catilinus 2008-05-27 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's win at all costs strategy

You seem bitter.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's win at all costs strategy

trash the 1990s and all Democrats who have come before you

Evidence or retraction.  Please link me to Obama "trashing" all Democrats who came before him.  Hop to it.

Call everybody racist

Evidence or retraction.  Please provide a link to anyone from the Obama campaign calling "everybody" racist.

blame your state losses on Fox News, insult the voters of KY and WV by calling them hicks

Evidence or retraction.  Please provide a link to anyone from the Obama campaign blaming losses on Fox News or calling voters in KY and WV "hicks."

Ignore MI and FL, risking your need for a G.E. victory, because at least in the G.E. you won't have to lose to a woman.

Obama was in both MI and FL last week.  That's hardly "ignoring" them.  Also, let's see evidence or retraction on your extremely offensive assertion that Obama somehow sees losing to a woman as more shameful than losing to a man.

No more free rides.  You're going to support your claims with evidence, retract them, or be exposed for your intellectual dishonesty.  Let's see it.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
Don't hold your breath waiting.

by tbetz 2008-05-27 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: With all due respect to Cuomo

Hillary is not even mentioned in the diary.  The point is the country fairs better under a Democratic administration.  Obam seems to have forgotten the historic successes of the 90's. I wonder why.

Nice that you respect Cuomo; too bad you're not up to acknowledging the truth of what he said. Nothing sexist here -- but there's been plenty of it from Obama's pundits!

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: again:

No one said this is the 90s.  We can certainly learn from our past successes and build on that.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: With all due respect to Cuomo

Hillary is not even mentioned in the diary.

Which in itself is significant.

A lot of things aren't mentioned in the diary: The tech boom/bubble, the strong dollar, stable oil prices.

Also not mentioned in the diary, the fact that a whole lot of things have happened since the 90s: Bush v Gore, the Iraq War., soaring oil prices, the housing collapse, the crash of the dollar.

Pretending that the last eight years haven't happened, or that we can magically turn back the clock, is not a solution.

Nostalgia is not a cure for the present.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-27 06:47AM | 0 recs

Learning from history is not turning back the clock.  Thank God the Clinton administration of the 90's gave the country a break from the Reagan/Bush years.  More than a break.  I have to check, but I think it was awhile since the country actually achieved a balanced budget and a huge surplus.

(as far as pointing out Hillary not mentioned in diary, that was in response to earlier comment)

re:  a lot has happened since the 90's.  exactly -- that's the point -- under repub/bush rule we regressed terribly.  I think if Gore had been president, he would have built upon the successes of the 90's...

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:58AM | 0 recs
The problem here is that Bill Clinton...

... set up the financial disasters of the last eight years by signing into law the act that repealed the last shreds of the Glass-Steagall act.

Barack Obama understands this mistake, and aims to correct it.

I see absolutely no evidence that Hillary Clinton does;  especially since her daughter's income depends upon her industry remaining deregulated.

by tbetz 2008-05-27 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Headsup everyone!

Bill Clinton is responsible for the economic disasters of the last eight years!! Where do you guys come from?  Let me guess........

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
So cite a factual error in my post.

I dare you.

Bill Clinton could have done the right thing, the moral thing, and vetoed that bill, but weakened by the after-effects of that scandal which can not be named (lest I be fouled with Republican talking points), Bill Clinton chose instead to sign off on the final repeal of Glass-Steagall and buy himself a little short-term political peace; just as Hillary, who could have had a hand in stopping the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, chose instead to build up her hawk bonafides for her inevitable run for the Presidency by voting for the Iraq AUMF.

Both Clintons consistently choose the immoral act that might provide them short-term political benefit over the moral act that might cause them short-term political difficulty.

by tbetz 2008-05-27 09:26AM | 0 recs
*** crickets ***

by tbetz 2008-05-27 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: better shape in 1992

The country was in debt at end of Reagan/Bush- Senior years.  Clinton admin. more than reversed that!  Took country out of debt into record-breaking surplus.  The back to another bush, back into the red again.  It was the 90's that interrupted all the regression of Reagan/Bush.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

We also had a Republican congress during most of the '90s and I certainly don't want to go back to that. Senator Obama is right in saying that the Clinton administration was a step in the right direction in many ways, and not as effective in others. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve on the work of past leaders.

There is also really no way to connect Hillary with the general economic conditions of the 1990s, she didn't have enough influence as first lady to affect any of the things on your list. She has done good work in the Senate so I think it'd be more productive to focus on that.

by Hammy 2008-05-27 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to Mario Cuomo

Read the diary.  Who brought up Hillary?

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:24AM | 0 recs

in respect to 90s.

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:25AM | 0 recs
Is there going to be cheap oil and a tech bubble?

Otherwise I don't see how we can bring the 90s back.

Also, income inequality increased in the 1990s.  For many, it wasn't the time of milk and honey that Clinton nostalgists like to pretend it was.

by JJE 2008-05-27 06:20AM | 0 recs
Get a clue

It was one of the few periods in the last forty years in which we our president was admired around the world.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 06:24AM | 0 recs

Do you have a point to make about the 90s economy and income inequality?

Obama is more popular internationally than Hillary.  So if that kind of thing is important to you then support Obama.

by JJE 2008-05-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Hillary very popular internationally

and income inequality decreased during the 1990s. It was a temporary decrease embedded in a 30-year increase in income inequality.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:32AM | 0 recs
Is this a spoof?

Income inequality increased during the 1990s.  I gave you a source.  Refute it, if you can, with something other than a bare assertion.

Obama is more popular than Hillary internationally.  

Facts are stubborn things.

by JJE 2008-05-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
The rise in income inequality slowed

during the 1990s before speeding up again.

As for who is more popular internationally, how can you measure such a thing? I would think by name recognition alone Hillary is more popular. But also because she's actually done a few things internationally, while Obama only meddled in Kenya's election on behalf of his oppressive cousin, inflaming tribal tensions.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
So you admit that income inequality increased

despite your earlier claim that it decreased.  That's progress, I suppose.

As for international popularity, my view is based on articles such as this, and many others.

As for your claim about Kenya, I guess mindless parroting of wingnut talking points is to be expected from the dead-ender set.

by JJE 2008-05-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
Name calling does not become you

or your candidate.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
So Joe Wilson is a right winger


by catfish2 2008-05-27 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Get a clue

Yup, because that's what the working class in America really cares about.  A steady job?  A living wage?  Health insurance?  We don't need any of that as long as the president is admired around the world.

The Clinton years were about as good as we could do in the '90s, which were a very Republican time - but we can do much better now.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Why is the working class voting for Hillary

if the 1990s were so bad.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Another reason not to vote Obama in the fall

He and his supporters have no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 06:25AM | 0 recs

Boy, interesting, isn't it?  All the Obama comments are quite negative towards Cuomo's reminder of past Dem successes.  Oh well.  What unifiers!

by moevaughn 2008-05-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason not to vote Obama in the fall

"He and his supporters have no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party"

Are their any grays in your world, or is it all black or white?

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason not to vote Obama in the fall

"There." Lol.

by catilinus 2008-05-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason not to vote Obama in the fall

He and his supporters have no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party.

You can find me a supporter who says anything, but you include Obama in that statement.  Please link me to a quotation from Obama and/or his campaign showing "no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party."  No more free rides; support your claims or retract them.  Hop to it.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 07:55AM | 0 recs
Reagan is awesome repubs have all

the ideas.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan is awesome repubs have all

Let's see a cite for "Reagan is awesome repubs have all the ideas."  I know you're not much into nuance or shades of gray, but the quote I think you're referring to could only be twisted to say what you think it says by someone who takes it completely out of context and intentionally misreads it.

Now, weren't you mad at some Obama supporters just this past weekend for doing just that to Sen. Clinton?

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:10AM | 0 recs
Citation 1 - the had the ideas

in the last 10, 15 years:

I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Citation 1 - the had the ideas

This quotation does not fully support your premise that Obama has "no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party."  By acknowledging that Republicans challenged the conventional wisdom, he also acknowledges that the Democrats controlled the conventional wisdom.  Moreover, he does not state explicit appreciation for the Republicans' ideas, and even a cursory look at the Issues section on his website indicates that the reason for this is that he doesn't appreciate the Republicans' ideas.  In fact, his values, principles, and policies are fully in line with those of the Democratic Party - the party for whose nomination he is running, the party whose leaders he has praised in the past, the party who you claim he shows "no appreciation for."

You're going to need to do better than that.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:46AM | 0 recs
Citation 2 - Reagan changed history

Reagan changed history. Nixon, Clinton did not:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Citation 2 - Reagan changed history

And how is that not true?

Ronald Reagan redrew the American political map and triggered a massive realignment in American politics that culminated in twelve years of complete Republican control over Congress and Republican majorities in many state legislatures.  Reagan completely altered the American political landscape by making "big government" the enemy.

Bill Clinton did not do that.  During his presidency, Republicans took back Congress.  His style was explicitly a compromise between the liberals and the conservatives.  Need I remind you that it was Pres. Clinton who declared the era of big government over?

Furthermore, this quotation still does not support your claim that Obama has "no appreciation for Democrats or the Democratic party."  To support that claim, you would need to show a quotation in which he explicitly dismisses the entire Democratic party and all Democrats.

If you cannot find such a quotation - which I think is very likely to be the case - intellectual honesty demands that you retract the claim.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:42AM | 0 recs
Enough with that language

"No more free rides, hop to it."

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with that language

No.  I've seen you post fact-free, baseless assertions on this site for far too long and not get called out on it.  From now on, when I see you making blanket statements about Obama, I'm going to call you out on them; you're going to need to provide evidence for your assertions or retract them.

Maybe it'll become a habit for you to do so, so that you no longer make blanket assertions you can't support with facts.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:11AM | 0 recs
You should call anybody out

when you see a mistake, absolutely. If they assert something without a link, ask for a link.

If they assert something unpleasant about Obama or Hillary, but can back it up with links or well-known examples, then that's another story.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You should call anybody out

The link must back the assertion - or as Toulmin might put it, you need "warrant" as well as "data."

Your assertion was not backed up by your quotation - nor, I would suppose, can you find quotations to back up the assertions you make upthread.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:25AM | 0 recs
Hop to it.

You're talking like a skinhead and being very bossy in tone.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hop to it.

A skinhead?  Really?

Those are basic rules for argumentation.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 08:37AM | 0 recs
In what school or workplace

do those rules fly?

by catfish2 2008-05-27 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: In what school or workplace

That you need not only data but warranting?

Again, standard argumentation.  Pretty basic stuff.

by mistersite 2008-05-27 09:34AM | 0 recs
Maybe in your frat house

but not in most adult circles.

by catfish2 2008-05-27 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: With all due respect to Cuomo
Cuomo lost in 1994 during the National GOP year- Contract with America. Rockefeller Republicans like George Pataki,Christine Todd Whitman,Tom Ridge,and Rudy Guiliani back then were popular based on their low taxes policy and thier tough on crime- death penalty and no parole.
Right now the National Republican Party and the NYGOP is in shambles.
by nkpolitics 2008-05-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: oh yeah

We are giving you a History Leason Douchebag about the 1990's and why good Democrats like Mario Cuomo and Ann Richards lost and corrupt Republicans like George W. Bush and John Rowland won. Liberalism back in the 1990s was not that popular. A Republican like Michael Brown would not be heading FEMA had Republicans like Tom Ridge or Rudy Guiliani been in charge.

By the way Its GUILIANI Time not DINKINS time.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-27 11:21AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads