Okay here is my take on Clinton. He was great. He was good at this when he was president. But seriously, almost all of what he was talking about is not Obama. His is whole speech was working together being a centrist. Obama is not that. He absolutely is a polar democrat
I really don't know if I am the only one that thinks that way. But it was a good speech. I wish Obama would do more of what was in that speech. And I was not a huge Clinton fan but I would go back to him in a second over Obama any time.
On the satellite radio this morning, one of the DJs claimed that Clinton's speech was the greatest he'd ever made and that intrigued me enough to look it up and watch it (I don't watch the national conventions: talk is cheap, actions are everything).
It was good. I'd like to know how the jobs figure was determined (straight # of jobs created while Republicans were in office vs 3 of jobs created while Democrats were in office?). If that was it, then I'd disagree with that analysis b/c the actions of one Congress will affect the results of the next Congress and so on. I do agree that ending discrimination grows the economy, but think it's unfair to generally say that all Republicans don't make an effort on that front.
Bill Clinton DNC Speech COMPLETE: 'We're In This Together' vs. 'You're On Your Own'
[youtube:10lxcjqt][/youtube:10lxcjqt]
CG, I don't myself think that Obama is a polar Democrat, I think the extreme conservatives have tried to portray him that way to keep their base emotionally charged and supportive. Whether he is a centrist or a polar Democrat doesn't matter, the problem it boils down to for me is that he hasn't done enough, IMO, action-wise on the environment, transparency, and reducing our involvement in the Middle East more than we have. And if he's elected again, we'll only continue to have 2 parties that prioritize rhetoric and pandering over solutions and results for the American people. To really make progress, we need to reduce the power and influence those 2 parties have in our government so I am still voting independently.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I disagree, I believe Obama is absolutely the most polar Dem in a long time. I personally thought that Clinton's speech illustrated that but the people shall decide.
Science Chic wrote: I'd like to know how the jobs figure was determined (straight # of jobs created while Republicans were in office vs 3 of jobs created while Democrats were in office?).
CinnamonGirl wrote: Okay here is my take on Clinton. He was great. He was good at this when he was president. But seriously, almost all of what he was talking about is not Obama. His is whole speech was working together being a centrist. Obama is not that. He absolutely is a polar democrat
I really don't know if I am the only one that thinks that way. But it was a good speech. I wish Obama would do more of what was in that speech. And I was not a huge Clinton fan but I would go back to him in a second over Obama any time.
I agree with you 100%. I would also add that Clinton just layed the foundation for Hillary in 2016. She will do well regardless of how the next Obama term goes (if reelected). If the economy turns around, she will benefit by running on a "continuation of success". If the economy still sucks, she can run on her husband's success and revitalize the Democrats.
Clinton tried to convince the audience that the policies of the 1990s could work for the current environment. BUT, he didn't mention the DOTCOM bubble, he didn't mention the fact that he balanced the budget and Obama failed to even come close... and he didn't mention the added 5.4 trillion in added debt that is sucking the life out of this economy. He said not long ago that we shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone during an a financial downturn... he forgot to mention that too. I don't think he gives a flip how well Obama does, just as long as Hillary can come riding in on her white horse in 2016. His painfully long speech was more about him IMO than it was about Obama.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
'Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month... The answer is yes.' -- President Bill Clinton
Soulshiner wrote: The Republicans just saw the height of the hole they are going to have to climb out of after President Clinton's speech.
Well I watched the speeches last night and again most of um were pretty bland, but I gotta give one speech the credit it deserves.
Bill Clinton kicked ass. I think this was the single most dangerous speech of the DNC so far. It was a damn good speech, and I almost forgot how good slick willy was at blending fact with fiction.
His point about the republicans plans to reduce the budget were on target I thought- with his "3 ways" it would happen. I favor the second method- slashing government programs.
He sure pulled at all our heart strings about how we were going to kick all the disabled people "out on their own". Of course that was a lie.
He is a very skilled speaker- and had great writers who blended fractional truths with outright lies. I think we all forget just how good a lyer he was- what with the oval office blowjobs and the "I never had sex with that woman...".
I fear that many moderates who were going to vote Romney might buy into his words- the conservatives will have an uphill battle to get them back. The fact is that Willy painted a much rosier picture than what is reality in the USA today- lots of wishful thinking.
Failed policy can't be rectified with 4 more years- it'll just be 4 more years of the same stuff.
He made the argument in a convincing way that we are better off today than 4 years ago- but I think most Americans know better!!
Most Americans will step back in a few days and say WAIT..... Were NOT better off- slick willy lied to us again.
Heisenberg wrote: I agree with you 100%. I would also add that Clinton just layed the foundation for Hillary in 2016. She will do well regardless of how the next Obama term goes (if reelected). If the economy turns around, she will benefit by running on a "continuation of success". If the economy still sucks, she can run on her husband's success and revitalize the Democrats.
Clinton tried to convince the audience that the policies of the 1990s could work for the current environment. BUT, he didn't mention the DOTCOM bubble, he didn't mention the fact that he balanced the budget and Obama failed to even come close... and he didn't mention the added 5.4 trillion in added debt that is sucking the life out of this economy. He said not long ago that we shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone during an a financial downturn... he forgot to mention that too. I don't think he gives a flip how well Obama does, just as long as Hillary can come riding in on her white horse in 2016. His painfully long speech was more about him IMO than it was about Obama.
I agree with your assessment on laying the foundation for Hillary, and the possibility intrigues me. I was watching him for body language during an interview about supporting Obama and I came away with the same impression: that he doesn't really give a flip about him, but knows he has to support the party line.
Raees wrote:
Science Chic wrote: I'd like to know how the jobs figure was determined (straight # of jobs created while Republicans were in office vs 3 of jobs created while Democrats were in office?).
Yes, but how much direct influence does the government have over creating private-sector jobs? Can you really say that a job created the day after a Dem president took office was his doing, or does it rightly belong to the Rep president who vacated the day before and signed legislation that helped make that job happen? What is the time-frame cut-off, a week, a month, 6 months? I think they can generally say that their policies created more, but to quantify hard numbers is disingenuous.
As PolitiFact also pointed out:
Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times
It’s unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems
Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
