NationStates Jolt Archive

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.

Lol, Hillary lie, slick Willy Bill Clinton lie, never.

I never had sexual relations with [insert name here].

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.

Lol, Hillary lie, slick Willy Bill Clinton lie, never.

"Would the Clintons lie?"

Would a bear **** in the woods?

She would never lie to me, I saw her cry once!

Click Stand;13392133']She would never lie to me, I saw her cry once!

The most calculated lie of all.

That the Clintons lie, and frequently, is a matter of fact and record. It's not just the Reagan thing. Hillary and Bill both have a serious Truth Problem.

They are politicians. Duh, they lie.

Yes, but most don't get caught at it so often and so easily. Therefore, they are INCOMPETENT liars.

They are politicians. Duh, they lie.

Yes, but most don't get caught at it so often and so easily. Therefore, they are INCOMPETENT liars.

This is true, however being bad at lieing might be a good thing. Anless they are incompetent in other areas which, as politicians they naturally are.

They are politicians. Duh, they lie.

Yes, and this is precisely the problem with these status quo politicians. People who continue to work on the divisions in America instead of the ways to bring us together. United we stand and divided we fall is not just a quote to make you feel giddy inside. It's time to start reclaiming America for the people and elect someone who can help change the course in Washington. It's time to get shit done instead of partisan bickering.

Would the Clintons lie?of course.
they are traditional politicians.


The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004.thats like to say MacCain is no better than Hitler.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.
Did you read the comments below the article?

I think this is a fair interpretation:

Hill
My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.

Obama
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.

She said what he said. No amount of going back and interpreting the quote will change that. The quote is close. She quoted him correctly. But, keep looking, maybe if you look hard enough you'll go blind and see something new. Quotes are quotes. Interpreting quotes is a different story. People can take the same quote and derive at different interpretations.
However, if you want to go crazy, be my guest.

After all, Americans did re-elect Bush in 2004. What was it then.....oh yea...swift boaters.

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

thats like to say MacCain is no better than Hitler.

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe McCain and St. Ronnie, America's Saviour v1.0.

And to answer the original question, does anyone think they wouldn't? I'm going to suggest that "even" St. Barack, America's Saviour v2.0, and St. Ronnie II, America's Saviour v3.0, are guilty of lies and half-truths.

I think this is a fair interpretation:

Sure, it's an understandable interpretation if you skim over the out-of-context quotes without really thinking.

The problem is first, that Obama explicitly defines what he means by the "party of ideas" is that they challenge the conventional wisdom - nowhere does he say that they are good. In fact, he has frequently decried them throughout his career.

Then Bill Clinton repeatedly claims that Obama said they were good ideas, when he didn't, even after clarifications are offered up. But here's how it went down if you watched the debate:

Hillary comes and says it on the debate knowing full well it's wrong. Then Obama clarifies what he said, after which Hillary continues to lie, claiming that it's in the "transcript". At one point, Hillary tries to claim that she never said it when she just did less than a minute prior, and Obama offers to rewind the tape.

It's pathetic. Anybody who can continue to support Clinton after witnessing that exchange either doesn't think honesty is an important presidential trait, or has some major cognitive dissonance going on.

I never had sexual relations with [insert name here].

Hmm? I wonder how many women have heard that line before?

They are politicians. Duh, they lie.

Exactly!

This is a legit question?


All Im gonna say is, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"


Followed some time after with, "America, I have lied to you."



Not that I care what the president does with his spare time or cigars, as long as he can lead. But seriously, of course the Clintons would lie:rolleyes:

Lying is a second language to politicans. To the Clintons, it's their native tongue. :p

Sure, it's an understandable interpretation if you skim over the out-of-context quotes without really thinking.
Okay, let's think about what Obama said.....

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.
That is one helluva slam against Bill Clinton who took office 15 years ago and was in office for 8 of those 15 years.

The Democrats under Clinton weren't the "party of ideas".....they didn't challenge "conventional wisdom"?

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.
Another slam against Clinton. You don't expect that those words are biting and waiting to be attacked? Here is a guy trying to get his foot in the door of the White House and slamming the last successful Democrat, who actually spent two terms in office.


It's pathetic. Anybody who can continue to support Clinton after witnessing that exchange either doesn't think honesty is an important presidential trait, or has some major cognitive dissonance going on.
I think the Clintons were pretty honest about their remarks.

From watching the tape, I see a guy fundamentally praising the Republicans (including George Bush?), while kicking sand into the eyes of the last Democrat to hold keys to the Oval Office.

Either Obama is trying to woo Republican supporters or has a severe Republican fetish.

And who are these Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years that have bringing forward these "ideas".....Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Delay? Rumsfeld? Powell? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Chertoff? Card? Negroponte? Snow? Wolfowitz? Scooter" Libby?

Don't you see the problem with what Obama stated?

The Democrats under Clinton weren't the "party of ideas".....they didn't challenge "conventional wisdom"?He didn't say that explicitly, but I think it's a valid interpretation. Remember "Contract with America"? That was an entirely new political idea. You didn't see Democrats getting together and doing anything like that.

Another slam against Clinton. You don't expect that those words are biting and waiting to be attacked? Here is a guy trying to get his foot in the door of the White House and slamming the last successful Democrat, who actually spent two terms in office.It doesn't matter if it's a "slam" or not - it's true. Bill Clinton was a far better president than any of the Republicans, but he wasn't successful at pushing a fundamentally progressive agenda, because he couldn't reach accross part lines to find common ground and forge coalitions. This is an important point of Obama's campaign thesis - that you can't create lasting change without consensus, and you can only acheive consensus to the extent that you engage fellow politicians in a constructive manner and establish a rapport.


I think the Clintons were pretty honest about their remarks.No, they weren't. They were by definition being dishonest. Obama has been perfectly clear and consistent about his views. What it boils down to is this:

Clintons said that Obama said that the Republicans had "good" ideas when they knew damn well he hadn't said that. When Obama pointed this out, Hillary continued to lie. Intentionally.

From watching the tape, I see a guy fundamentally praising the Republicans (including George Bush?), while kicking sand into the eyes of the last Democrat to hold keys to the Oval Office.

Either Obama is trying to woo Republican supporters or has a severe Republican fetish.

If that's what you see, then you're imagining things. He makes it crystal clear that he isn't "fundamentally" praising Republicans by explicitly restricting his praise; he says that he thinks they were the party of ideas "in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." Not "in the sense that I really like Republicans." To think that he likes Republican policies, one would have to be willfully ignorant of virtually everything else he says on the campaign trail. Maybe this includes you, but it sure as hell doesn't include the Clintons.

I would also object to the fundamental implication that this race should be about Republicans vs Democrats, and as long as our team wins and we don't give the party a bad name, we can engage in as much demagoguery as we want. THAT is precisely the attitude that lost democrats the 2000 and 2004 elections, and will lose it again for us in 2008 if Clinton wins the nomination. Especially if she ends up running against somebody with at least a shred of integrity, like McCain.

And who are these Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years that have bringing forward these "ideas".....Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Delay? Rumsfeld? Powell? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Chertoff? Card? Negroponte? Snow? Wolfowitz? Scooter" Libby?As a matter of fact, yes. Under Bush's not-so-watchful eye, the neocons have had free reign to try out ALL their cracked-out ideas, like turning the US into a surveillance society, eroding freedoms in the name of security, manufacturing consent for an ideologically-motivated war, building concentration camps and torturing people, and generally undermining the checks and balances in government that work to sustain democracy.

Don't you see the problem with what Obama stated?The problem is that he doesn't go far enough. The Republicans have been running wild over this country for decades regardless of whether they hold the majority or not because they have their political shit together and Democrats' thinking is still trapped in the interpretive frames of the 60's. Clinton may have done well to revive the economy and maintain the status quo as president while facing a hostile Congress, but no fundamental change took place, nor was any fundamental change on Clinton's agenda.

The Bolsheviks, a radical political party of revolutionary ideas, challenged the conventional political wisdom of the 1900's by creating the Soviet Union, the first modern socialist state.

Am I a Bolshevik sympathiser now?

I think Hillary has a real problem here. The statement about the Republicans having all the ideas was a very smart barb by Barack, it implies a lot as Canuck has pointed out.

It's very hard for Hillary to respond effectively, and I don't think she took the right route.

The actual problem is that Hillary has always been the smart kid on the block and I suspect she, or her team, hasnt fully appreciated that Barack is pretty damn clever himself. I think she, or her team, need a change of mindset and start to work on policies because cheap attacks simply aren't working.

I'm not sure of the best means for her to counteract this, I wonder if the aim is to get Barack to lose his temper, thus pushing the idea that he can't handle real politics re lack of experience.

Yet I'm guessing he can, and very well.

I'm coming round to supporting him, I feel that the main reason I've supported Hillary, aside from the fact that I think she's a good candidate regardless, is the venom that's directed at her.

However there's no escaping the fact that she will be divisive and that Barack does represent a hope for a new route out of partisan politics.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.

Well they are politicians, isn't lying in the job description?

I would also object to the fundamental implication that this race should be about Republicans vs Democrats, and as long as our team wins and we don't give the party a bad name, we can engage in as much demagoguery as we want. THAT is precisely the attitude that lost democrats the 2000 and 2004 elections, and will lose it again for us in 2008 if Clinton wins the nomination. Especially if she ends up running against somebody with at least a shred of integrity, like McCain

QFT

Excellent post

are they politicians? get real. true thomas would never get elected dog catcher, let alone president.

the question isn't whether any politician would not lie, cheat and steal, but rather who are they more capable and inclinded to doing so FOR; the corporatocracy, or you, me, and the environment every living thing's existence, including yours and mine, utterly depends upon.

the clintons do appear to be bought and paid for by that corporatocracy to a degree, hopefully an at least slightly lesser degree then the shruberies, but i'll grant you their not, for this reason, my first choice.

they'd still be my choice ahead of just about ANY white male republican though. NOT BECAUSE of party lie-ins, but because the retardlicans keep offering up little other then wacko right wing loonies.

=^^=
.../\...

Well they are politicians, isn't lying in the job description?

Indeed it is. You are quite right, but the Clintons seem to have distingusihed themselves in this area in two ways, IMHO.

Firstly, I think at some point they became complacent. Usually, when a politician lies, they are careful to make the lie either difficult to detect or mired in enough political doubletalk that the politician can always go back and claim to have meant something different. The Clintons have gradually shed these layers of padding to the point of open and blatant lies, presumably gambling that enough people will buy it that those who don't can be drowned out in rhetoric.

Second, on some level a lot of Clinton die-hards just don't care. They see the ends as justification of the means and if the Clintons have to bake the truth a little to get more support, then so be it. They see the alternatives as worse. This attitude, of course, is counter-justified by saying "all politicians lie." at which point we come full circle.

That, IMHO is what makes Hillary so undesireable. At least when a politician tries to hide their lies there's still an underlying acknowledgement that lying is not a good thing and nobody will support a blatant liar. Hillary and Bill's popularity seems to represent a shift from that mentality that I find disconcerting.

Anyone who thinks an elected official higher than the rank of "dog catcher" doesn't lie is in a sad state of denial. My favorite comments from some of my friends include things like:

"How can you vote for so-and-so, he *lied*" For some reason my laughter after this comment doesn't stop them from adding "Well, so and so wouldn't have lied."

And then there is always the "So-and-so only lied about such-and-such, while whats-his-name lied about this-or-that, and thats much worse!" arguement.

Unless we all get together and decide that at the first sign of a lie, we immediatley recall/impeach/remove the lying jackasses, we will always be lied to.

But we love people who tell us what we want to hear.

The Democrats under Clinton weren't the "party of ideas".....they didn't challenge "conventional wisdom"?

they didn't. not successfully anyways. maybe you missed it, but since the advent of the southern strategy, and particularly once it was successfully used by reagan-era republicans on all levels of government, the republicans have dominated the political landscape and effectively controlled the media narratives. democrats have mostly cowered in fear and joined up with republican idiocy - when they weren't actively promoting it themselves. the media has consistently allowed lies to be spread as long as they fit the republican-created conventional wisdom. the democrats have been more or less unable to change that. even now with the republican party in utter disarray, and with absolutely no political credibility to their names, significant parts of the democratic party are still cowering in fear of the mean things republicans will say about them.

And who are these Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years that have bringing forward these "ideas".....Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Delay? Rumsfeld? Powell? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Chertoff? Card? Negroponte? Snow? Wolfowitz? Scooter" Libby?

some of those, lots of others. check the think tanks, check the electoral strategy, check the propaganda creation and promotion. is it really so hard to understand that 'ideas' ≠ 'good ideas'?

Did you read the comments below the article?

I think this is a fair interpretation:

He makes it very clear that it was not his intention to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas. He clarifies it as "in the sense that they were challenging the conventional wisdom" and then goes on to talk about at least one of those ideas that he says does not work.

You have to stretch it pretty far to get, "better ideas" from something that not only doesn't say that, but even suggests the opposite.

Okay, let's think about what Obama said.....

Again, taking it out of context. He talks about both Republican and Democrat presidents who took the country in new directions - and says it is largely a product of the times. It isn't a slam on any given president - it is a statement of what the current times call for.

I think the Clintons were pretty honest about their remarks.

Right.....

From watching the tape, I see a guy fundamentally praising the Republicans (including George Bush?), while kicking sand into the eyes of the last Democrat to hold keys to the Oval Office.

Then you aren't watching. You definitely stopped paying attention before the end of the video.

Yes, both of the Clintons would/do lie.

Does that impact their ability to run a country? No, I do not think so.

Yes, both of the Clintons would/do lie.

Does that impact their ability to run a country? No, I do not think so.

That's a sad state of affairs.

"Clinton has lied to us frequently enough that she's been caught doing it more than once. But that doesn't affect her ability to lead the country."

Apparently, you think it is best to have the leaders of the nation lying to the populace? You must be a huge fan of Bush and co.

Of course they lie and that debate showed us all why Clinton should not get elected. At this rate, I may vote for Obama in the general.

You can see how many people have said they are liars, and still they get support. I know most politicians lie, but there must be at least one that does not do as much. He will be the one that the media will not show a lot of or talk about.
The only way that you and I can have a revolution in this country is to vote for the person that is not in the main stream and has a good backround.
This will force all of Washington to stand up and take notice that We The People are still the governing body.
But can we do it.
If someone out there has the knowledge to put something together in cyberspace and who can find a good candidate, me and my family will get on board and vote and promote.
We are all sick of the status quo in Washington.
Let us as the Nation States actually do someting about it.:headbang:
I will help all I can.
Someone PLEASE step forward.

That's a sad state of affairs.

"Clinton has lied to us frequently enough that she's been caught doing it more than once. But that doesn't affect her ability to lead the country."

Apparently, you think it is best to have the leaders of the nation lying to the populace? You must be a huge fan of Bush and co.

LOL!!!

Lol, Hillary lie, slick Willy Bill Clinton lie, never.
Or even more apropos, "I have no idea where those Rose Law firm billing records were."

Yes the Clintons lie.
I hope they never reach presidency.

That's a sad state of affairs.

"Clinton has lied to us frequently enough that she's been caught doing it more than once. But that doesn't affect her ability to lead the country."

Apparently, you think it is best to have the leaders of the nation lying to the populace? You must be a huge fan of Bush and co.

I do not hate Abraham Lincoln even though he has black hair. Does that mean I think all black-haired people are good leaders? No.

In all candor I do not care for the Clintons. Bill appears irresponsible, and Hillary is power mad. I was merely stating that being kind and honest does not necessarily make you a better leader (see Jimmy Carter).

I do not hate Abraham Lincoln even though he has black hair. Does that mean I think all black-haired people are good leaders? No.

In all candor I do not care for the Clintons. Bill appears irresponsible, and Hillary is power mad. I was merely stating that being kind and honest does not necessarily make you a better leader (see Jimmy Carter).

So, again, you don't think dishonesty affects one's ability to be a good leader?

So, again, you don't think dishonesty affects one's ability to be a good leader?

No.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm

I do not hate Abraham Lincoln even though he has black hair. Does that mean I think all black-haired people are good leaders? No.

In all candor I do not care for the Clintons. Bill appears irresponsible, and Hillary is power mad. I was merely stating that being kind and honest does not necessarily make you a better leader (see Jimmy Carter).

One of the necessities of being a leader is to be able to inspire others to have confidence in you. Knowing that your leader is a consistent, pathological liar is not exactly inspiring.

Would the Clinton`s lie?
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
They`re both liars. Always have been, always will be.

No.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm

Then you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this issue.

So, again, you don't think dishonesty affects one's ability to be a good leader?
We haven't seen a good leader in national politics in a long time. Based on that, the answer must be "Yes, it does degrade one's ability to be a good leader".

Seriously, deception and deceit catch up with one. A leader needs the trust and respect of his followers, not something that can be gained by dishonesty.

Sure, it's an understandable interpretation if you skim over the out-of-context quotes without really thinking.

The problem is first, that Obama explicitly defines what he means by the "party of ideas" is that they challenge the conventional wisdom - nowhere does he say that they are good. In fact, he has frequently decried them throughout his career.

Then Bill Clinton repeatedly claims that Obama said they were good ideas, when he didn't, even after clarifications are offered up. But here's how it went down if you watched the debate:

Hillary comes and says it on the debate knowing full well it's wrong. Then Obama clarifies what he said, after which Hillary continues to lie, claiming that it's in the "transcript". At one point, Hillary tries to claim that she never said it when she just did less than a minute prior, and Obama offers to rewind the tape.

It's pathetic. Anybody who can continue to support Clinton after witnessing that exchange either doesn't think honesty is an important presidential trait, or has some major cognitive dissonance going on.

Thank you. I've been busy and not able to get back. In the quoted section you copied it is not the actual transcript of the article she was referring to. That's the issue here. He never said they were good ideas and both Hillary and Bill have stated that he did. There's a difference between transformative and doing something well. Barack was right, over the past 10-15 years it has been the Republican party that has pushed pretty much every piece of legislation through. Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress and the purely partisan bickering. The Republicans entered into their "Contract With America" and owned Congress until 2006. The Republicans have held the presidency far more than the Democrats in the past 50 years. God damn right the Republicans had bigger and bolder ideas than the Democrats. Shit, they can't get a veto proof bill through today. Yes, the Republicans have done a far better job of pushing their agenda than the Democrats have.

Okay, let's think about what Obama said.....


That is one helluva slam against Bill Clinton who took office 15 years ago and was in office for 8 of those 15 years.

The Democrats under Clinton weren't the "party of ideas".....they didn't challenge "conventional wisdom"?


Another slam against Clinton. You don't expect that those words are biting and waiting to be attacked? Here is a guy trying to get his foot in the door of the White House and slamming the last successful Democrat, who actually spent two terms in office.



I think the Clintons were pretty honest about their remarks.

From watching the tape, I see a guy fundamentally praising the Republicans (including George Bush?), while kicking sand into the eyes of the last Democrat to hold keys to the Oval Office.

Either Obama is trying to woo Republican supporters or has a severe Republican fetish.

And who are these Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years that have bringing forward these "ideas".....Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Delay? Rumsfeld? Powell? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Chertoff? Card? Negroponte? Snow? Wolfowitz? Scooter" Libby?

Don't you see the problem with what Obama stated?

Try looking a little farther if you will. Obama started by talking about Reagan. Since Reagan I'll point you to the Contract with America and Newt Gingrich. Their ideas were not all great, but they gave America a clear vision of where they wanted to go. That's what Obama is about, the vision that he has. Obama is a transformative figure as the Clintons are not. Working together is the only way to make things truly happen. Will the Republicans be willing to work together under Hillary? Nope, partisan bullshit continues. Obama at least has a chance of changing the way things work simply because his name isn't Bush or Clinton.

One of the necessities of being a leader is to be able to inspire others to have confidence in you. Knowing that your leader is a consistent, pathological liar is not exactly inspiring.

Correct; one should not get caught.

Bill Clinton is a self admitted liar "I never had sex with that woman!" And, he looked us right in the eye when he made that statement on national TV. Hillary is no better than Bill, in fact I'm not so sure there is a politician alive who hasn't lied. It's just some are better at it than others and the Clinton's are the best in the world at it. :mad::mad:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Then you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this issue.

What did I expect from a name that endorses two cocked-up parties? :p

Anyway, I do not see how you can consider lying bad for the nation. Perhaps the deed that it covered-up is, but of itself, how so? You cannot tell if a liar is running the nation well, or not, because you cannot trust him. But they could very well be running the nation well. For instance, Bill obviously lied about his extra-marital affairs, but was that lie bad for the nation? No. It did not really harm anything. That does not mean Bill was a good president, it just means that his lying was not itself a problem.

They do all the time.

He makes it very clear that it was not his intention to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas. He clarifies it as "in the sense that they were challenging the conventional wisdom" and then goes on to talk about at least one of those ideas that he says does not work.

You have to stretch it pretty far to get, "better ideas" from something that not only doesn't say that, but even suggests the opposite.
Obama took a calculated risk and sucker punched Bill Clinton and we can see the results. It weakened the Democrats. He calculated wrong. It may not have been his "intention" to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas, but it sure comes across like that. At the very least, it was an attack on Bill Clinton's term of office.

We haven't seen a good leader in national politics in a long time. Based on that, the answer must be "Yes, it does degrade one's ability to be a good leader".

Seriously, deception and deceit catch up with one. A leader needs the trust and respect of his followers, not something that can be gained by dishonesty.

I truly do like it when we can agree.

The Republicans entered into their "Contract With America" and owned Congress until 2006. The Republicans have held the presidency far more than the Democrats in the past 50 years. God damn right the Republicans had bigger and bolder ideas than the Democrats. Shit, they can't get a veto proof bill through today. Yes, the Republicans have done a far better job of pushing their agenda than the Democrats have.
Well to hell with it then.....just might as well always vote Republican??? Why take a chance on Democrats????

They are human. Duh, they lie.

Bold part corrected

It may not have been his "intention" to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas, but it sure comes across like that.

only to the willfully obtuse.

Well to hell with it then.....just might as well always vote Republican??? Why take a chance on Democrats????

1) because there is a rather important difference between an ability to create and implement ideas and an ability to create and implement good ideas

2) because shit changes

seriously man, wtf?

Anyone who thinks Senator Obama did not know exactly what he was saying is being naive - it was an implied attack on the Clintons and Senator Clinton had to respond - she may not have done it in the right way but anyone who thinks Senator Obama doesn't have a strategy to undermine her is doing as much a disservice to his political nous as anything else.

RE: would the Clinton's lie?
Answer: Yes, next question.

I say that we "accidentaly" send the Clintons to a "vacation" in Siberia...:D

Obama took a calculated risk and sucker punched Bill Clinton and we can see the results. It weakened the Democrats. He calculated wrong. It may not have been his "intention" to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas, but it sure comes across like that. At the very least, it was an attack on Bill Clinton's term of office.

Oh no, how dare we not just lavish praise on Bill Clinton!!! Listen, just because GHWB and Bill have become "the saintly philanthropists" in their later stages doesn't mean we forget their administration. Now, I liked both of these men but I do realize their limitations. Neither one of them will leave an extremely pleasant memory in your head when your two biggest impressions are Iran Contra and multiple scandals.

Neither one of them were "great" presidents. They are trying to make it up now after and they are doing pretty well. Their reign will be known as the most toxic period in politics this century. They led divided nations against their best interests and we see the net affect years later. Both are a hell of a lot better than the current administration. Let's not fool ourselves into glorifying Bill Clinton. I know it's just a reactionary party loyalist thing for the die hards of both party to "support" your guy. Look at it objectively and if you still think either were GREAT then enlighten us so we can rethink it. Until then they were both average at best.

Anyone who thinks Senator Obama did not know exactly what he was saying is being naive - it was an implied attack on the Clintons and Senator Clinton had to respond - she may not have done it in the right way but anyone who thinks Senator Obama doesn't have a strategy to undermine her is doing as much a disservice to his political nous as anything else.
Well, at least you and I are on the same wave length in this regard. I think the rest of them are out to lunch. :D

Well to hell with it then.....just might as well always vote Republican??? Why take a chance on Democrats????

You are missing the point. The past decade or so have been divided. Ronald Reagan started a movement but it led to problems we are seeing now. He changed the landscape but it was not for the better. The others just followed along in the same tradition. Foreign policy got worse as the years went by. The well became more poisoned as the years passed as well. There are two candidates in this race who really have a vision that can put this nation on a different path. I believe it will be better for us all, but that's up for you to decide. I could vote for Obama or McCain, so I'm not ruling out Democrats. I'm ruling out people who are essentially for more of the same bullshit we have now.

Well, at least you and I are on the same wave length in this regard. I think the rest of them are out to lunch. :D

Would you rather Obama just sit back like John Kerry did? The Clintons are just more of the same BS. They have taken attacks and launched attacks. They are polished in the ways of the political system today. Hillary will continue to polarize the populace and we can have less progress from the congress. Hillary does not get people to come to the table in a productive way.

Well, at least you and I are on the same wave length in this regard. I think the rest of them are out to lunch. :D

I'm not sure about 'out to lunch' - I think, as is often the case, it's arguing two slightly different points.

One point is that what Senator Obama said was essentially correct, which is broadly true.

EDIT: I have to say, I think it's unfair to say that the Clinton Presidency did not have ideas, they were overshadowed by a multitude of unrelated issues but they had ideas.

One point is that Senator Obama had an ulterior agenda behind his statement, which I think is also fairly true.

There is a blanket of protection over Senator Obama, partly due to the fact that he has vastly less political baggage than Hillary. Yet the fact remains that his policies remain somewhat vague on the issue of change, he constantly repeats 'hope' and 'change' but what exactly is this change?

Does he really think the Republicans will roll over and accept consensus politics, is that the change he expects? Then is it in his policies, where is the real change there? Does he think a chat with antagonistic countries will change the world, or that no one's tried this before?

Where are his ideas that represent real change?

It's not fair to allow him to get away with this vagueness, he needs to clearly state his policies so they're open to scrutiny. Senator Obama has asked for the discussion to be focused on policies, well lay them out then.

I like him, I think he's very smart and as I've said before, I'm leaning towards him more these days because, between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I feel she will guarantee divisiveness whereas he has the potential to be more unifying, I hope.

Yet blank support for him out of dislike for Senator Clinton isn't fair.

Liuzzo - Let's not fool ourselves into glorifying Bill Clinton.

Indeed, let's be consistent.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.

As someone that is undecided between Barack and Hillary, I find this whining rather tiresome and unhelpful to Obama's cause.

First, as CH has tried to point out, the accusation that the Clintons are lying is without merit. The Clintons are fairly characterizing what Barack said. The argument that he didn't technically say the Republican's had "good" ideas when he praised Reagan and praised the Republican party as the party of ideas is sillier than the debate over what the meaning of "is" is. (Which comment at least happened in the context of a deposition when the parsing of words was appropriate.)

Second, even if the Clinton's characterization is unfair, it is hardly dirty tricks on the scale of Bush swiftboating or the push-poll rumors against McCain. Try a little perspective.

Third, although Obama may not want Democratic voters to compare his record and Senator Clinton's, to do so is hardly the politics of "smear and fear." And, BTW, was Obama's attacks on Clinton for being on the board of Wal-Mart inappropriate or are you applying a double-standard?

Fourth, the point about veto-proof majorities loses its sting when you are contemplating a Democraatic President and Congress. You don't need veto-proof majorities unless you are trying to pass something over the objection of the President. :headbang:

Finally, if you are really unable to distinguish between the years under the Bushses and the years under Bill Clinton, don't expect to find a great deal of sympathy from Democratic primary voters. The differences were vast and wide. See the economy, the budget, the war, etc.

Oh no, how dare we not just lavish praise on Bill Clinton!!!
Did I say anything about "lavishing praise" on Bill Clinton? No, I did not. You just made the same mistake that you accuse Bill and Hillary of.

Listen, just because GHWB and Bill have become "the saintly philanthropists" in their later stages doesn't mean we forget their administration.
Again...what has this got to do with this debate?

Now, I liked both of these men but I do realize their limitations. Neither one of them will leave an extremely pleasant memory in your head when your two biggest impressions are Iran Contra and multiple scandals.
GHWB's term of office was more than the 10 to 15 years that Obama was speaking of, so he is kinda excluded? So, what are you left with? Thats right, 8 years of Clinton and 7 years of George "Uniter" Bush. The latter is clearly a man of "vision", a member of the "part of ideas", who were "challenging conventional wisdom"? Give me a break!!

That is a huge slam against Bill Clinton. Obama opened a can of worms.

Neither one of them were "great" presidents.
Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any President (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html)since they started recording approval ratings.

They are trying to make it up now after and they are doing pretty well.
Sure they are doing well. The rest is just your opinion.

Their reign will be known as the most toxic period in politics this century.
Totally disagree, especially considering Dubya's record.

They led divided nations against their best interests and we see the net affect years later.
I believe that Americans felt pretty good about themselves and their country during the Clinton years.

Let's not fool ourselves into glorifying Bill Clinton.
No it is far better just glorifying the Republicans and lavishing them with praise (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394479&postcount=47).

I think it is more about the Clintons defending themselves, than "glorifying" them.

Look at it objectively and if you still think either were GREAT then enlighten us so we can rethink it. Until then they were both average at best.
Yet it was Obama who stated unequivocally:

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.
Yea....some heavy duty objective thinking on his part!! :rolleyes:

Obama took a calculated risk and sucker punched Bill Clinton and we can see the results. It weakened the Democrats. He calculated wrong.
Obama isn't like the Clintons - not everything he says is a "calulation" - he cares more about telling the truth. If telling the truth weakens the Democratic party, then it deserves to be weakened. But IMO, it is lies that weakens; truth only exposes weakness.

Anyone who thinks Senator Obama did not know exactly what he was saying is being naive - it was an implied attack on the Clintons and Senator Clinton had to respond - she may not have done it in the right way but anyone who thinks Senator Obama doesn't have a strategy to undermine her is doing as much a disservice to his political nous as anything else.Of course he wants to "undermine" her - he's running for president against her. The "strategy" he's using is called honesty, and it's what gives him the moral high ground in this race.

There is a blanket of protection over Senator Obama, partly due to the fact that he has vastly less political baggage than Hillary. Yet the fact remains that his policies remain somewhat vague on the issue of change, he constantly repeats 'hope' and 'change' but what exactly is this change?
If you listen to him, he says what kind of change he wants in nearly every speech he gives, and although he could certainly communicate it more concisely, there's nothing vague about his central campaign thesis when simply put:

The policy changes that citizens widely agree are needed to move this country forward are insurmountable given the current way politics is done in Washington. Therefore, we must allow the citizens to drive the political process by bringing radical transparency, accountability, and citizen participation to Washington.

Or even more simply put:

Barack Obama is changing the way politics is done.

Does he really think the Republicans will roll over and accept consensus politics, is that the change he expects?
No, he thinks their constituencies can force them to accept it. (Although many Republicans DO accept consensus politics. They're not all evil, just misguided.)

Where are his ideas that represent real change?Well, for one, he's the only candidate who understands the importance of the Internet, and its ability to radically change democracy, as alluded to in his technology policy: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

It's not fair to allow him to get away with this vagueness, he needs to clearly state his policies so they're open to scrutiny. Senator Obama has asked for the discussion to be focused on policies, well lay them out then.He does. He's many speeches focused on various points of policy. Unfortunately, the media would rather simply parrot the false framing of "inspiration vs experience" because it makes for better soundbites and doesn't doesn't give the stupid viewers headaches.

Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any President (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html)since they started recording approval ratings.

Not many had any idea who Johann Sebastian Bach was twenty years after his death. Your point?

Finally, if you are really unable to distinguish between the years under the Bushses and the years under Bill Clinton, don't expect to find a great deal of sympathy from Democratic primary voters. The differences were vast and wide. See the economy, the budget, the war, etc.
Verily. Unfortunately, the only lingering memories of either are for Bush the Elder, Iran contra and the Gulf War; Clinton, a bunch of scandals and committing perjury; Bush the Younger is currently blamed for all the US's problems, but within four or five years I doubt he'll be remembered for much more than the Iraq war, 9/11 and mispronouncing words. As for little things like the economy, civil liberties, etc., nobody really cares about those. ;)

Second, even if the Clinton's characterization is unfair, it is hardly dirty tricks on the scale of Bush swiftboating or the push-poll rumors against McCain. Try a little perspective.I'd like to think that Democrats should hold themselves to a much higher standard than Bush's 2004 campaign. A little technical lie is still a lie, especially when it's intentional and designed to mislead.

Third, although Obama may not want Democratic voters to compare his record and Senator Clinton's, to do so is hardly the politics of "smear and fear."Clinton doesn't compare. She distorts and lies.

And, BTW, was Obama's attacks on Clinton for being on the board of Wal-Mart inappropriate or are you applying a double-standard?It's not a double standard when the standard is truth.

Fourth, the point about veto-proof majorities loses its sting when you are contemplating a Democraatic President and Congress. You don't need veto-proof majorities unless you are trying to pass something over the objection of the President. :headbang:It's called a filibuster.

Finally, if you are really unable to distinguish between the years under the Bushses and the years under Bill Clinton, don't expect to find a great deal of sympathy from Democratic primary voters. The differences were vast and wide. See the economy, the budget, the war, etc.Nobody with any sense disputes that Clinton's presidency was in general far better for the country than was Reagan's or either of the Bush's.

That is a huge slam against Bill Clinton. Obama opened a can of worms.I prefer the term "can o' whoop-ass", or can of fresh Del Monte Truth. He served up a little more Truth by pointing out that the Clintons have offered up some praise for Reagan on various occasions too.

*snip*

Thanks - I don't disagree with much of your post but I would like to explain my point.

First, I don't think he's the 'only candidate that understands the importance of the Internet' - but I'm being picky...

Let's look at the speech you quoted though:

“Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.”

I mean, I can say this - 'Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability.' - who doesn't want that? Yet how is he going to do this, is there an army of potential teachers out there we haven't located? How is this all going to be paid for? Have politicians been setting low standards all this time, hampering broadband density?

This is exactly what I mean - it's easy to make grand speeches about what we want to do without laying down exactly how we're going to do it. It makes the sting of political inexperience, in terms of how Washington works, seem a little on course.

Generations of politicians have tried to solve the world's problems, how are his policies a change, some kind of magic bullet?

I think he gets away from proper scrutiny and allows the general wave of vitriol against Clinton to be the focus here, he fans it, he makes all these points about the Clinton's lying, tapping into a deep-rooted, though admittedly not unmerited, feeling about them.

The worst thing is that such blanket support discredits him, he's a smart political operator and should be given such credit rather than being seen as some homely good guy with a heart of pure gold.

please tell me you didn't just read the opening fluff blurb of his policy and stop

please tell me you didn't just read the opening fluff blurb of his policy and stop

Lol - I totally did, I didn't see the scroll down - apologies and let me read it thoroughly.

Okay, for scroll down to "Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy". It's central to his campaign thesis. No other candidate has shit that like in their platform.

How is this all going to be paid for?I think that all of the Democrats are claiming fiscal responsibility this year by using Bush tax cut roll-backs and ending the Iraq war as a major source of freeing up funds.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM

10:30
"Culture wars are just so nineties!"

OMG Clinton bash!!!

Okay, for scroll down to "Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy". It's central to his campaign thesis. No other candidate has shit that like in their platform.

Well it's certainly impressive, I particularly like ODF in terms of government transparency as it's not just laying out a potential lucrative contract to MS or other.

I still think Senator Obama's policies have not been properly scrutinized and I feel Senator Clinton has a far better grasp and knowledge of most of the issues.

I also feel that he hasn't laid them out fully, or at least taken time to do so where he has and that this has given him protection, allowing the debate to focus, essentially, on Senator Clinton's personality.

All I'd like is less vitriol aimed at Senator Clinton and more focus on the differences in policy.

I grant that, in not having thoroughly read all the issues myself, I am subject to this criticism as well - in my defense, I've been reading policy articles in the media rather than those focused on scurrilous accusations.

That's fair. I blame the mainstream media anyway.

the Clinton's are the best in the world at it. :mad::mad:

By that, then, obviously, Bush and Co. weren't as good at it ... or everyone who believed them were simply fucking morons. Or worse.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

No.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/
?

By that, then, obviously, Bush and Co. weren't as good at it ... or everyone who believed them were simply fucking morons. Or worse.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/
I think the latter would be more applicable!! :D Especially when the Bushies ordered a 2nd round!!

George the Protector!! :rolleyes:

and the Clinton's are the best in the world at it. :mad::mad:

Nope, they're not. If they were the best in the world at it, you and all of us would see them as blameless saints and the pinnacles of honesty. As we are capable of recognising their lies as, well, lies, they obviously aren't trying hard enough.

What did I expect from a name that endorses two cocked-up parties? :p

Actually, it doesn't endorse any party, and also includes Independents.

Anyway, I do not see how you can consider lying bad for the nation. Perhaps the deed that it covered-up is, but of itself, how so? You cannot tell if a liar is running the nation well, or not, because you cannot trust him. But they could very well be running the nation well. For instance, Bill obviously lied about his extra-marital affairs, but was that lie bad for the nation? No. It did not really harm anything. That does not mean Bill was a good president, it just means that his lying was not itself a problem.

A well-informed populace is essential to democracy. A leader who lies to the populace is trying to keep them from being informed, thus undermining democracy.

I don't really care what Bill does sexually and, to tell you the truth of the matter, I don't care if he lies about it. But that lie makes me wonder what else he was lying to the populace about....


Obama took a calculated risk and sucker punched Bill Clinton and we can see the results. It weakened the Democrats. He calculated wrong. It may not have been his "intention" to say that the Republicans had "better" ideas, but it sure comes across like that. At the very least, it was an attack on Bill Clinton's term of office.

He didn't "sucker punch" anything. There was no criticism of Bill Clinton personally in that statement. Obama makes a point of stating that he thinks transformative leaders are largely a product of the times in which they lead - that the American populace has to be looking for that type of transformation.

And there is no way a person can get "better" ideas out of what he said if they are actually listening to what he says. He even ends by saying that at least one of those ideas isn't working and isn't going to help with the problems we face, despite the Republicans' reliance on it.


Anyone who thinks Senator Obama did not know exactly what he was saying is being naive - it was an implied attack on the Clintons and Senator Clinton had to respond - she may not have done it in the right way but anyone who thinks Senator Obama doesn't have a strategy to undermine her is doing as much a disservice to his political nous as anything else.

The only way it was an "attack" was the fact that he pointed out he thinks he is the better leader for the times. There's not a single candidate running who isn't going to say that.

First, as CH has tried to point out, the accusation that the Clintons are lying is without merit. The Clintons are fairly characterizing what Barack said.

No, they aren't, especially not when taken in the context of the rest of what he has to say (where he specifically points out that one of those ideas is not working) and in the context of what he has been saying throughout the campaign (and even before).

These same sorts of sentiments were put forth in The Audacity of Hope and no one complained that he was saying the Republicans had all the good ideas. Why? Because he wasn't and they know it. The difference here is that they think they can capitalize on it politically by misconstruing his remarks.

The argument that he didn't technically say the Republican's had "good" ideas when he praised Reagan and praised the Republican party as the party of ideas is sillier than the debate over what the meaning of "is" is. (Which comment at least happened in the context of a deposition when the parsing of words was appropriate.)

And here is the issue - it wasn't praise for the ideas (Reagan's or the parties) so much as an analysis of how well they pushed those ideas. He was pointing out that Reagan was a transformative figure in politics and that he was good at getting people from the other side of the table to agree to his policies. In no way does this mean that the things he was doing were good things.

Pointing out that someone was an effective leader does not in any way equate to saying that they led in the right direction.

The same goes for discussing the Republican party as the "party of ideas". Pointing out that they have been able to successfully push through new ideas does not mean that those ideas are good things. He even states that the Republicans' ideas have "run their course" and that they aren't working.

Third, although Obama may not want Democratic voters to compare his record and Senator Clinton's, to do so is hardly the politics of "smear and fear."

How is "ZOMG! YOU SAID REAGAN WAS A GOOD LEADER!!!!!!" comparing their records?


I mean, I can say this - 'Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability.' - who doesn't want that? Yet how is he going to do this, is there an army of potential teachers out there we haven't located? How is this all going to be paid for?

Maybe you should check things like....his record. He's proposed bills on these sorts of things.


I think that all of the Democrats are claiming fiscal responsibility this year by using Bush tax cut roll-backs and ending the Iraq war as a major source of freeing up funds.

And Obama has actually advocated going back to the "Pay-go" system (I think that's what it's called) where a bill must include its source of funding.

Actually, it doesn't endorse any party, and also includes Independents.

It endorses none, by being named after all?

A well-informed populace is essential to democracy. A leader who lies to the populace is trying to keep them from being informed, thus undermining democracy.


Perhaps. But that does not indicate he is not doing a good job. Sure, I would prefer a leader who was truthful, because I know more about his actions. But one who is not can still be a good leader.

I don't really care what Bill does sexually and, to tell you the truth of the matter, I don't care if he lies about it.

You see that it does not affect the nation.

But that lie makes me wonder what else he was lying to the populace about....

But the lies would not be troubling; the possible actions which they cover-up would be.

It endorses none, by being named after all?

Precisely. It was kind of a "Can't we all just get along?" name.

Perhaps. But that does not indicate he is not doing a good job. Sure, I would prefer a leader who was truthful, because I know more about his actions. But one who is not can still be a good leader.

Not in a democratic system. He'd be undermining the very system he was supposed to lead.

But the lies would not be troubling; the possible actions which they cover-up would be.

They could both be troubling. The lies would always be troubling, because they would interfere with the voters' ability to make a good judgment.

You know, all this "ZOMG, he's praising Reagan!" stuff reminds me a bit of the hoopla a few years ago when everyone was screaming about Schwarzenegger praising Hitler.

The statement made was to the effect that Schwarzenegger admired Hitler's speaking ability and ability to lead, but that he did not agree with what Hitler did with it. Of course, it was construed as meaning that Schwarzenegger admired Hitler's actions.

You know, all this "ZOMG, he's praising Reagan!" stuff reminds me a bit of the hoopla a few years ago when everyone was screaming about Schwarzenegger praising Hitler.

The statement made was to the effect that Schwarzenegger admired Hitler's speaking ability and ability to lead, but that he did not agree with what Hitler did with it. Of course, it was construed as meaning that Schwarzenegger admired Hitler's actions.

That's why I try to look at the whole thing before making judgments like that. Odds are, when judged, the statement would be taken out of context.

Precisely. It was kind of a "Can't we all just get along?" name.

You are there. I am among the "obliterate" stage. Nuke all three parties. :cool:

Not in a democratic system. He'd be undermining the very system he was supposed to lead.


The system, yes. But that does not mean the nation is not better-off under his rule. It is like saying all dictators are bad rulers. Yes, most are. But not because they are dictators.

They could both be troubling. The lies would always be troubling, because they would interfere with the voters' ability to make a good judgment.

No candidate care about that, they only want to win. Show me one candidate that says after losing: "Well, the voters made the better judgment. I guess I just would not run the country as well as my opponent."

You are there. I am among the "obliterate" stage. Nuke all three parties. :cool:

Well...except for the fact that Independent is not a party.

The system, yes. But that does not mean the nation is not better-off under his rule. It is like saying all dictators are bad rulers. Yes, most are. But not because they are dictators.

Dictatorship is a bad system and I would say that anyone seeking it is a bad leader. The only way I would see a dictator as a good leader is if he were trying to change the system so that it would no longer be a dictatorship.

No candidate care about that, they only want to win. Show me one candidate that says after losing: "Well, the voters made the better judgment. I guess I just would not run the country as well as my opponent."

Now you're being silly. I said that interfering with the ability of the voters to make a good judgment is a bad thing - and I think Obama would agree with that statement. This does not, of course, mean that he would agree with any given decision that the voters come to.

I think that it is a very bad thing to keep essential information from the voters. I don't agree with everyone who is voting, however.

Its not just that they lie. Yes, we all know most if not all politicians lie. Its that they blatently lie and then lie about lieing and defend their crazy web of lies with more lies and then attack people who call them out on it. Which is why Mrs. Clinton will never be president. NO ONE has any idea what she would actually do in office. Once shes asked to clarify her various positions on health care, the economy and the war all of the lies will climax.

As someone that is undecided between Barack and Hillary, I find this whining rather tiresome and unhelpful to Obama's cause.

First, as CH has tried to point out, the accusation that the Clintons are lying is without merit. The Clintons are fairly characterizing what Barack said. The argument that he didn't technically say the Republican's had "good" ideas when he praised Reagan and praised the Republican party as the party of ideas is sillier than the debate over what the meaning of "is" is. (Which comment at least happened in the context of a deposition when the parsing of words was appropriate.)

Second, even if the Clinton's characterization is unfair, it is hardly dirty tricks on the scale of Bush swiftboating or the push-poll rumors against McCain. Try a little perspective.

Third, although Obama may not want Democratic voters to compare his record and Senator Clinton's, to do so is hardly the politics of "smear and fear." And, BTW, was Obama's attacks on Clinton for being on the board of Wal-Mart inappropriate or are you applying a double-standard?

Fourth, the point about veto-proof majorities loses its sting when you are contemplating a Democraatic President and Congress. You don't need veto-proof majorities unless you are trying to pass something over the objection of the President. :headbang:

Finally, if you are really unable to distinguish between the years under the Bushses and the years under Bill Clinton, don't expect to find a great deal of sympathy from Democratic primary voters. The differences were vast and wide. See the economy, the budget, the war, etc.

You clearly like Bill Clinton a whole lot so I'll just accept that. I didn't say anything about the differences between Bush 1 and Billy. The differences were varied and we can both agree on that. However, there were glaring similarities in the climate they created, the ability for congress to move legislation, and the media/legal wars stirred up by both men. Neither one of them were "great" presidents who are beyond reproach.

Did I say anything about "lavishing praise" on Bill Clinton? No, I did not. You just made the same mistake that you accuse Bill and Hillary of.


Again...what has this got to do with this debate?


GHWB's term of office was more than the 10 to 15 years that Obama was speaking of, so he is kinda excluded? So, what are you left with? Thats right, 8 years of Clinton and 7 years of George "Uniter" Bush. The latter is clearly a man of "vision", a member of the "part of ideas", who were "challenging conventional wisdom"? Give me a break!!

That is a huge slam against Bill Clinton. Obama opened a can of worms.


Clinton left the White House with the highest approval rating of any President (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html)since they started recording approval ratings.


Sure they are doing well. The rest is just your opinion.


Totally disagree, especially considering Dubya's record.


I believe that Americans felt pretty good about themselves and their country during the Clinton years.


No it is far better just glorifying the Republicans and lavishing them with praise (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394479&postcount=47).

I think it is more about the Clintons defending themselves, than "glorifying" them.


Yet it was Obama who stated unequivocally:


Yea....some heavy duty objective thinking on his part!! :rolleyes:

1. approval ratings do not make a great president.

2. Obama was speaking in generalities about the 10-15 year time period. Further, I'll point you to 2004 (which does fall in that time frame) when the "Contract with America" came out. Their ideas may not have been great, but they sure as shit told you what their vision was and there was no confusion. Hence the takeover of the Republicans in congress.

3. It is not my opinion that they were mired in scandals. This is true by the historical record.

4. Americans may have fealt good about themselves, but is that a result of a President. As an American I always feel good about myself.

5. The name Bush/Clinton is the most divisive name in American politics today. Most Republicans despise Bill Clinton while most Democrats despise GHWB. Their names do not promote progress and bipartisanship. Their names polarize not only congress, but Americans as a whole.

6. The Republican party was much better at staying on message and showing the American people what their vision was. Good or bad? This is why the Democrats were unable to win in 2004. With so many people looking at Bush negatively the Democrats could not find their "voice" and get on message. The Republicans have been better at selling their ideas, period.

Obama isn't like the Clintons - not everything he says is a "calulation" - he cares more about telling the truth. If telling the truth weakens the Democratic party, then it deserves to be weakened. But IMO, it is lies that weakens; truth only exposes weakness.

Of course he wants to "undermine" her - he's running for president against her. The "strategy" he's using is called honesty, and it's what gives him the moral high ground in this race.


If you listen to him, he says what kind of change he wants in nearly every speech he gives, and although he could certainly communicate it more concisely, there's nothing vague about his central campaign thesis when simply put:

The policy changes that citizens widely agree are needed to move this country forward are insurmountable given the current way politics is done in Washington. Therefore, we must allow the citizens to drive the political process by bringing radical transparency, accountability, and citizen participation to Washington.

Or even more simply put:

Barack Obama is changing the way politics is done.


No, he thinks their constituencies can force them to accept it. (Although many Republicans DO accept consensus politics. They're not all evil, just misguided.)

Well, for one, he's the only candidate who understands the importance of the Internet, and its ability to radically change democracy, as alluded to in his technology policy: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

He does. He's many speeches focused on various points of policy. Unfortunately, the media would rather simply parrot the false framing of "inspiration vs experience" because it makes for better soundbites and doesn't doesn't give the stupid viewers headaches.

His policies are clearly on his website and are there for anyone who wants to look. The media wants to turn this into a slugfest and not focus on the issues. For anyone who wants to find the info it is there.

His policies are clearly on his website and are there for anyone who wants to look. The media wants to turn this into a slugfest and not focus on the issues. For anyone who wants to find the info it is there.
Keep in mind that the slugfest was initiated by Obama himself, by his inappropriate comments.

Whether you like Bill or Hillary or not is irrelevant. They responded to an obvious slam and the best thing for the Dems is to drop the matter altogether, as it only hurts the cause.

1. approval ratings do not make a great president.
Perhaps not, but one would think that he must have done something right to rate such an approval, especially considering the scandals that only certain people want to characterize his term of office.

2. Obama was speaking in generalities about the 10-15 year time period. Further, I'll point you to 2004 (which does fall in that time frame) when the "Contract with America" came out.
You mean 1994, not 2004?

Obama might have been speaking in general terms, but he was very specific with his praise of Republicans. Obama even lumped Clinton in with Nixon. Nice touch!!

Their ideas may not have been great, but they sure as shit told you what their vision was and there was no confusion. Hence the takeover of the Republicans in congress.
And of course Clinton didn't have a vision and the Republicans didn't have to work with a Democrat President to ensure those visions and vice versa?

3. It is not my opinion that they were mired in scandals. This is true by the historical record.
And pray tell what administration didn't have its' share of scandal? You are grasping at straws.

4. Americans may have fealt good about themselves, but is that a result of a President. As an American I always feel good about myself.
if the comments on NSG the past 5 years are any indication, there are not too many Americans feeling good about there country during the past 7 years of the Reign of Error.

5. The name Bush/Clinton is the most divisive name in American politics today.
Yea....Dubya considers himself a "uniter" and a "compassionate conservative"....yeah right!! I believe that the US was more united under Clinton then they wre under either Bush or Reagan.

Most Republicans despise Bill Clinton while most Democrats despise GHWB.
I don't think most Dems despise GHWB, more likely GWB? Clinton is a pretty popular figure these days?

Their names do not promote progress and bipartisanship. Their names polarize not only congress, but Americans as a whole.
Yet, Clinton was able to accomplish a lot with Republicans in Congress?

6. The Republican party was much better at staying on message and showing the American people what their vision was. Good or bad? This is why the Democrats were unable to win in 2004.
Yea, the Republicans sold their message of fear and the voters bought it. That and a great hatchet job on John Kerry.

With so many people looking at Bush negatively the Democrats could not find their "voice" and get on message. The Republicans have been better at selling their ideas, period.
Yup, in 2004, the politics of fear trumped the politics of reason for sure.

Oh no, how dare we not just lavish praise on Bill Clinton!!! Listen, just because GHWB and Bill have become "the saintly philanthropists" in their later stages doesn't mean we forget their administration. Now, I liked both of these men but I do realize their limitations. Neither one of them will leave an extremely pleasant memory in your head when your two biggest impressions are Iran Contra and multiple scandals.

Neither one of them were "great" presidents. They are trying to make it up now after and they are doing pretty well. Their reign will be known as the most toxic period in politics this century. They led divided nations against their best interests and we see the net affect years later. Both are a hell of a lot better than the current administration. Let's not fool ourselves into glorifying Bill Clinton. I know it's just a reactionary party loyalist thing for the die hards of both party to "support" your guy. Look at it objectively and if you still think either were GREAT then enlighten us so we can rethink it. Until then they were both average at best.

Um. Iran-Contra was a REAGAN ADMINISTRATION SCANDAL.

Not that I defend George the Elder, but I think it funny that you are lecturing us about great Presidents, but getting your basic history wrong.

You clearly like Bill Clinton a whole lot so I'll just accept that. I didn't say anything about the differences between Bush 1 and Billy. The differences were varied and we can both agree on that. However, there were glaring similarities in the climate they created, the ability for congress to move legislation, and the media/legal wars stirred up by both men. Neither one of them were "great" presidents who are beyond reproach.

All you got out of the many points that I raised was that I like Bill Clinton?

Regardless, you and the rest of the Obama supporters seem to be missing the point in responding to me. I am an ardent Democrat and will be voting in the Feb. 5 primary. I am currently UNDECIDED between Clinton and Obama. So I should be the ideal candidate for you to persuade, not to bicker with.

And, no, praising Reagan and the Republicans doesn't go over well with me. And that is what Obama did.

No, they aren't, especially not when taken in the context of the rest of what he has to say (where he specifically points out that one of those ideas is not working) and in the context of what he has been saying throughout the campaign (and even before).

These same sorts of sentiments were put forth in The Audacity of Hope and no one complained that he was saying the Republicans had all the good ideas. Why? Because he wasn't and they know it. The difference here is that they think they can capitalize on it politically by misconstruing his remarks.

And here is the issue - it wasn't praise for the ideas (Reagan's or the parties) so much as an analysis of how well they pushed those ideas. He was pointing out that Reagan was a transformative figure in politics and that he was good at getting people from the other side of the table to agree to his policies. In no way does this mean that the things he was doing were good things.

Pointing out that someone was an effective leader does not in any way equate to saying that they led in the right direction.

The same goes for discussing the Republican party as the "party of ideas". Pointing out that they have been able to successfully push through new ideas does not mean that those ideas are good things. He even states that the Republicans' ideas have "run their course" and that they aren't working.

I've read The Audacity of Hope. It was pretty vague on details as well.

Regardless, you are spinning Obama's comments even harder than the Clintons have been.

Where did Obama specifically say the Republican ideas aren't working? He didn't say that. He said something about people "feel like things as they are going aren’t working," but he didn't tie that to his statement about Republican ideas.

All in all, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the Clintons' characterization of Obama's remarks is a bold-faced lie. Perhaps his remarks are open to other interpretations as you posit, but it is hardly a stretch to note he implied the Republicans had good ideas.

Moreover, I don't agree that Reagan was this great tranformative leader and Bill Clinton is no better than Nixon. As a Democrat, these comments don't do a lot to persuade me that Obama best represents me.

I note that the Obama camp got all up set at the Clintons because Hillary dared to suggest that President Johnson had something to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That comment was far more distorted than anything discussed about Obama.

How is "ZOMG! YOU SAID REAGAN WAS A GOOD LEADER!!!!!!" comparing their records?

I love how it is fair game to vastly distort what the Clintons' said, but even the slightest characterzation of Obama's comments is out of bounds.

And, no, praising Reagan and the Republicans doesn't go over well with me. And that is what Obama did.
That is exactly what Obama did, and a huge slam against Clinton.

Praising Republicans and dissing Clinton is certainly not the earmark of a man of "vision", and certainly does little to suggest that he could be a "transformative" kind of leader.

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama.

Q: Do politicians lie ?
A: Does the god-emperor of mankind sit much ?

Indeed they do lie. And worse, they lie badly.

Keep in mind that the slugfest was initiated by Obama himself, by his inappropriate comments.

Yeah, those "inappropriate comments" that were made in his book - and bothered no one then.

Whether you like Bill or Hillary or not is irrelevant. They responded to an obvious slam and the best thing for the Dems is to drop the matter altogether, as it only hurts the cause.

They responded to something they knew was not a "slam" as if it were. Either that, or they didn't mind the "slam" when the book came out - before the presidential race.


I've read The Audacity of Hope. It was pretty vague on details as well.

But, if you've read it, you know that there wasn't a single sentiment expressed in the interview that wasn't also expressed in the book. So why weren't people slamming him as a Republican-lover then?

Regardless, you are spinning Obama's comments even harder than the Clintons have been.

Where did Obama specifically say the Republican ideas aren't working? He didn't say that. He said something about people "feel like things as they are going aren’t working," but he didn't tie that to his statement about Republican ideas.

He talks about the Republican economic policies - the economic idea that tax cuts are the answer to most problems. He specifically says they've been tried, and that we know they aren't going to solve the problems we face.

All in all, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the Clintons' characterization of Obama's remarks is a bold-faced lie. Perhaps his remarks are open to other interpretations as you posit, but it is hardly a stretch to note he implied the Republicans had good ideas.

It is a huge stretch if you watch the entire inverview and have any sense of Obama's platform and the rest of what he has to say.

If these statements were made by someone else, and we only look at part of what was said in the interview, one might come to that conclusion. With all the context, however, one has to try very, very hard to come to that conclusion.

Meanwhile, you also have to assume that they either had no idea that he expressed all of these same sentiments in a book published before he decided to run for president or that they weren't bothered by such sentiments until they were repeated in an interview.


Moreover, I don't agree that Reagan was this great tranformative leader and Bill Clinton is no better than Nixon. As a Democrat, these comments don't do a lot to persuade me that Obama best represents me.

Again, you're trying to make the comments more than what they were. Obama didn't say that Clinton was "no better than Nixon". What he said was that neither were the type of transformative leader he was talking about. Neither served as president at a time that was ripe for such a leader, so neither had the kind of impact (for better or for worse) that Kennedy or Reagan had.

And note once again that "transformative leader" doesn't mean that he led in the right direction. Reagan managed to pull a lot of support from Democrats for some pretty big changes. That doesn't mean the changes were good ones.

I note that the Obama camp got all up set at the Clintons because Hillary dared to suggest that President Johnson had something to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That comment was far more distorted than anything discussed about Obama.

I disagree - that it was more distorted, that is. I didn't really understand all the hoopla over the comment. I don't think it was very well-worded, but I don't really have the context of the full speech to go on with it either.

I love how it is fair game to vastly distort what the Clintons' said, but even the slightest characterzation of Obama's comments is out of bounds.

Eh? What distortion of what the Clintons said?

You said that a comparison of the records was appropriate. I agree with you. I'm wondering how any of this amounts to a comparison of their records.

Regardless, you and the rest of the Obama supporters seem to be missing the point in responding to me. I am an ardent Democrat and will be voting in the Feb. 5 primary. I am currently UNDECIDED between Clinton and Obama. So I should be the ideal candidate for you to persuade, not to bicker with.

And, no, praising Reagan and the Republicans doesn't go over well with me. And that is what Obama did.

Let's look at the quote where he supposedly praises Republicans, shall we?

"The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

He starts out by saying that the approach has played itself out. He then says, "Now, you've heard it all before." In other words, they aren't proposing anything new these days. He then talks about the economic policies - specifically the tax cuts -and dismisses them (the hand motion on the video is useful here) saying, "Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it."

If you take that one sentence - the "party of ideas" sentence - alone, it might look like major praise for the Republican party. Taken in context, however, it really isn't. He's dismissing those ideas as been there/done that.

The comment, when taken in context, is pretty clear. The Republicans had ideas and they pushed them through. We've tried them. They weren't what we need. We need something different.


Meanwhile, if you really don't like praise of Reagan, you should check out some of the Clintons' comments about him.

From factcheck.org, here's one from Hillary:
"When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully."

Or Bill:
"The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that."


Those, in my mind, express much clearer praise for Reagan than:

"I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it."

Especially when it is coupled with this not much later:

"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times."

His intention was not to praise Reagan, in particular, but to point to transformative leaders, and to make the point that he thinks that such a leader is what we need at this time - that we need a president who can draw in support from independents and Republicans and move the country in a fundamentally different direction.


If you want to interpret his comments as heaping praise upon Reagan and the Republicans as if he agreed with their policies, you go right on ahead. But the evidence really doesn't bear that out.

Keep in mind that the slugfest was initiated by Obama himself, by his inappropriate comments.

Whether you like Bill or Hillary or not is irrelevant. They responded to an obvious slam and the best thing for the Dems is to drop the matter altogether, as it only hurts the cause.

I would think that it was the comments by Bill Clinton talking about "false hope" and a "fairy tale" that were responsible first. After days of Bill Clinton taking shots for his wife Obama finally fired back. This exchange is the most telling:

Hillary: I didn't say anything about...
Obama: Well your husband did...
Hillary: Well he's not here I am
Obama: I can't tell who I'm running against...

The Clintons play the political game of win as all costs. They practice the politics of smear and fear. Notice that GHWB didn't interject constantly when Jr. was running either time. He did the honorable things and let them bang it out themselves. Bill Clinton needs to realize his role as the 42nd President of the United States and remember where it cuts off from his role as Hillary's spouse. Michelle Obama isn't making policy statements and she's an intelligent lawyer too. She isn't making attacks on Hillary. As a spouse you should advocate for your mate but that's where it ends. Using his influence to pound Obama just makes Bill look bad and in turn his wife as well. I liked America under Bill Clinton far more than GWB, but enough is enough.

Um. Iran-Contra was a REAGAN ADMINISTRATION SCANDAL.

Not that I defend George the Elder, but I think it funny that you are lecturing us about great Presidents, but getting your basic history wrong.

Really, I'm getting my basic history wrong? Who then was the VP during the Iran-Contra hearings? Who was it that led the CIA before that pretty much ensuring the overthrow of dictators we didn't find appealing and installing puppets? GHWB had far more impact during the Reagan years than some give him credit for. Hell, after Ronnie went off his rocker he pretty much was all we had in the Executive. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ I have my history down just fine thank you.

All you got out of the many points that I raised was that I like Bill Clinton?

Regardless, you and the rest of the Obama supporters seem to be missing the point in responding to me. I am an ardent Democrat and will be voting in the Feb. 5 primary. I am currently UNDECIDED between Clinton and Obama. So I should be the ideal candidate for you to persuade, not to bicker with.

And, no, praising Reagan and the Republicans doesn't go over well with me. And that is what Obama did.

Have you ever watched Lewis Black? "The Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. Here's how it works...A Repulican stands up and say 'I have a really bad idea.' Then a Democrat stands up and says ' and I can make it shittier." Barack Obama spoke out on issues that are clear to people of all political stripes. The Republicans were up front with their ideas and pushed for them to make it though congress. He did not say they were good ideas, jsut as I am not saying they were good ideas. The Democratic party has had very little vision and even worse leadership. Face it, the Democrats have shat the bed for quite a while now. The entire time there were Clintons in the forefront.

You mistake me I think. I voted for Clinton twice. I never voted for GWB, so I'm in independent minded Libratarian, registered Republican, and I support both Obama and McCain. Hillary Clinton will do nothing to heal this country and work to bridge the divides we have. All she will bring is more of the same toxins and I think most of us are sick of that.

Yeah, those "inappropriate comments" that were made in his book - and bothered no one then.

They responded to something they knew was not a "slam" as if it were. Either that, or they didn't mind the "slam" when the book came out - before the presidential race.
Perhaps what you need to do is step back, take a big breath, and take a more objective look at what you are trying to accomplish here?

From your passionate defence of Obama, I sense a seething dislike, if not hatred for Hillary Clinton? What will that accomplish in the long run, especially if they become running mates?

Personally, I think that is destructive for the Democrats' goal of attaining the White House.

I also get the sense that you are trying to shout down the opposition here with an attitude of I am right and they are wrong. I can show you many comments from others that agree with TCT and myself that Obama's remarks appear to praise the Republicans, while putting down Clinton's accomplishments.

I can well imagine how the Republicans will use those same comments to skewer Obama in the General election, should Obama succeed in getting the nod.

I sure as heck do not want to see the Democrats go down in a heap over such vitriolic attitudes.

If Obama wants to sell himself as one of those transformative type leaders, then he will need to better practice the politics of inclusion and demonstrate that he is the better person for the job.

He won't be able to do that by praising Republicans and dissing Democrats.

The Democratic party has had very little vision and even worse leadership. Face it, the Democrats have shat the bed for quite a while now.

You mistake me I think. I voted for Clinton twice.
Considering that the Dems were "shitting the bed for quite awhile now", "had very little vision and even worse leadership", it is amazing that you found yourself voting for Clinton twice.

The entire time there were Clintons in the forefront.
That is where you wanted them to be???

Have you ever watched Lewis Black? "The Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. Here's how it works...A Repulican stands up and say 'I have a really bad idea.' Then a Democrat stands up and says ' and I can make it shittier."

precisely. this whole thing was pretty much standard fare for criticism of the democratic party from people whose criticism isn't flat out insane.

"Would the Clintons lie?"

Would a bear **** in the woods?

Is a pig's ass pork?

Does D-O-G spell "dog"?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Would a pumpkin smash to bits on Halloween night if you dropped it off the 86th floor of the Empire State Building? (OK, that one was a little long :D )

Michelle Obama isn't making policy statements and she's an intelligent lawyer too. She isn't making attacks on Hillary.

Oh come on!

Michelle Obama, who could become America’s first black First Lady, has launched a scathing attack on her husband’s opponent Hillary Clinton, stating she represents "the same old thing over and over again".

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/18/wuspols118.xml)

Why people are acting as though Senator Obama is devoid of the ability to attack is beyond me.

It's been said already but there's a whiff of hatred in the defense of Senator Obama, where saying 'he's honest, forthright and above petty politics' is drawing a direct comparison to the detriment of one person.

well if they do than I'm not voting for Hilary, ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING CRAZY! I DONT CARE IF SHE SUCKS 10 DICKS AT ONCE AND SAYS YOUR MOTHER DID IT. she will put money in your pockets and all will be well with the world once again like it was when bill was in office AND WHO EVER THINKS DIFFENT IS A FUCKING IDIOT:upyours:

Considering that the Dems were "shitting the bed for quite awhile now", "had very little vision and even worse leadership", it is amazing that you found yourself voting for Clinton twice.


That is where you wanted them to be???

Hmm, Clinton or GHB and Bob Dole? Yeah, I chose the better man for the job. It doesn't mean that he was my #1 choice. You're missing that I actually liked Bill Clinton, I just didn't find him to be a great President or one of great vision.

well if they do than I'm not voting for Hilary, ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING CRAZY! I DONT CARE IF SHE SUCKS 10 DICKS AT ONCE AND SAYS YOUR MOTHER DID IT. she will put money in your pockets and all will be well with the world once again like it was when bill was in office AND WHO EVER THINKS DIFFENT IS A FUCKING IDIOT:upyours:

Except for the fact that taxes will go up which will take money AWAY from people...

You're an interesting little troll aren't ya?

Oh come on!



Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/18/wuspols118.xml)

Why people are acting as though Senator Obama is devoid of the ability to attack is beyond me.

It's been said already but there's a whiff of hatred in the defense of Senator Obama, where saying 'he's honest, forthright and above petty politics' is drawing a direct comparison to the detriment of one person.

She does not make policy statements. Her words here are really considered and attack here? Saying that her husband represents new hope vs. the status quo is an attack? She's also not a former POTUS. I remind you, even GHWB didn't attack Jr.'s opponents. He at least had more class than to do that. Hillary took a pounding tonight as she should.

She does not make policy statements. Her words here are really considered and attack here? Saying that her husband represents new hope vs. the status quo is an attack? She's also not a former POTUS. I remind you, even GHWB didn't attack Jr.'s opponents. He at least had more class than to do that. Hillary took a pounding tonight as she should.

And hopefully it continues.

Except for the fact that taxes will go up which will take money AWAY from people...

You're an interesting little troll aren't ya?
And Obama won't raise taxes? And as you suggested earlier, you might even vote for him, so yeah, you know a lot about trolling. :p

Perhaps what you need to do is step back, take a big breath, and take a more objective look at what you are trying to accomplish here?

From your passionate defence of Obama, I sense a seething dislike, if not hatred for Hillary Clinton? What will that accomplish in the long run, especially if they become running mates?

I don't like lies and dirty politics. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I also don't see her as a good candidate. I see her as more of the same politics we've had in Washington for years - and she's showing that to be true with this kind of thing.

Personally, I think that is destructive for the Democrats' goal of attaining the White House.

I have to be honest, I'm not looking to put a Democrat in the White House. I support a candidate who I think would be a good president. The fact that he is a Democrat doesn't really matter. I'd vote for a Republican if I thought that person was a good candidate. Sadly though, the Republican party seems to have become completely controlled by the religious right, so I don't see them putting forth a decent candidate.

I also get the sense that you are trying to shout down the opposition here with an attitude of I am right and they are wrong. I can show you many comments from others that agree with TCT and myself that Obama's remarks appear to praise the Republicans, while putting down Clinton's accomplishments.

You are wrong. The evidence is there. I'm not shouting anyone down. I'm just pointing it out.

I can well imagine how the Republicans will use those same comments to skewer Obama in the General election, should Obama succeed in getting the nod.

I sure as heck do not want to see the Democrats go down in a heap over such vitriolic attitudes.

I only see vitriolic attitudes coming from the Clinton camp. There was nothing that was vitriolic in the least in Obama's comments. To be fair, we have seen him get a bit snippy in response, which is unfortunate. But it's not exactly a deal-breaker.

If Obama wants to sell himself as one of those transformative type leaders, then he will need to better practice the politics of inclusion and demonstrate that he is the better person for the job.

Both of which he has done.

Inclusion is an interesting word. You seem to want it to include only Democrats, though. To win a general election, Obama needs to do exactly what he has been doing - the one thing he actually somewhat praised Reagan for - forming a large enough consensus to get things done. To do so, he needs independents and crossover Republicans (both of which he has already been getting in the primaries) in addition to the hard-core Democrats.

Of course, pointing that out is apparently high praise for Republicans and an attack on Democrats.

And Obama won't raise taxes? And as you suggested earlier, you might even vote for him, so yeah, you know a lot about trolling. :p

This is not about Obama but Clinton. :D

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004.

The Clintons of today are no better than the Clintons of the 1990's

Moreover, I don't agree that Reagan was this great tranformative leader and Bill Clinton is no better than Nixon. As a Democrat, these comments don't do a lot to persuade me that Obama best represents me.


I'll narrowly focus on this just to point out that 1) it wasn't a Republican who famously announced that "The era of Big Government is over", or reformed welfare, or signed NAFTA, or signed the Freedom to Farm Act, or DOMA, and 2) no Democrat in the era stretching from FDR to Carter would have done those things. What changed? Well, people responded to and subscribed to Reagan's thinking on the subject. Where he was silent on some issues, they responded to proxies that reinforced Reagan's zeitgeist. Clinton did what other Democrats did not in no small part because he was working in an era where everyone remembered Reagan's lessons, while no one thought that there was anything of value to be had from the old liberal guard.

Now, you've probably seen me enough to know that I don't find welfare reform, NAFTA, Freedom to Farm, or DOMA particularly good pieces of work. I am in no way complimenting the Republicans or Reagan for the quality of the work they produced. The closest you will ever see me come to complimenting Reagan would be to say that he corrected excesses in the old liberal system, but that the need for these cures has far outlasted the disease that inspired them, and in fact we've developed a dependency on the idea that deficits don't matter and tax cuts cure all fiscal problems.

If you look at what Obama said, what I've said seems little more than a blunted form of what he said. If the above is true, though, then yes, you have to say that Reagan was transformative in a way that Nixon and Clinton were not. Clinton is most charitably described as a president who managed to sneak some progressive elements into a conservative public era, just as Nixon was able to slip some conservative views about crime and punishment into an otherwise very liberal timeframe. Neither changed the public zeitgeist, but only worked within it. Reagan, however, either changed it or embodied the change, depending on who you talk to. If so, then his governing was fundamentally different.

I'll narrowly focus on this just to point out that 1) it wasn't a Republican who famously announced that "The era of Big Government is over", or reformed welfare, or signed NAFTA, or signed the Freedom to Farm Act, or DOMA, and 2) no Democrat in the era stretching from FDR to Carter would have done those things. What changed? Well, people responded to and subscribed to Reagan's thinking on the subject. Where he was silent on some issues, they responded to proxies that reinforced Reagan's zeitgeist. Clinton did what other Democrats did not in no small part because he was working in an era where everyone remembered Reagan's lessons, while no one thought that there was anything of value to be had from the old liberal guard.

Now, you've probably seen me enough to know that I don't find welfare reform, NAFTA, Freedom to Farm, or DOMA particularly good pieces of work. I am in no way complimenting the Republicans or Reagan for the quality of the work they produced. The closest you will ever see me come to complimenting Reagan would be to say that he corrected excesses in the old liberal system, but that the need for these cures has far outlasted the disease that inspired them, and in fact we've developed a dependency on the idea that deficits don't matter and tax cuts cure all fiscal problems.

If you look at what Obama said, what I've said seems little more than a blunted form of what he said. If the above is true, though, then yes, you have to say that Reagan was transformative in a way that Nixon and Clinton were not. Clinton is most charitably described as a president who managed to sneak some progressive elements into a conservative public era, just as Nixon was able to slip some conservative views about crime and punishment into an otherwise very liberal timeframe. Neither changed the public zeitgeist, but only worked within it. Reagan, however, either changed it or embodied the change, depending on who you talk to. If so, then his governing was fundamentally different.

If you're not xenophobic as your name suggests we may become allies. You put my thoughts into a more eloquent package and I thank you for that. Nobody said Reagan was great, just transformative.

Really, I'm getting my basic history wrong? Who then was the VP during the Iran-Contra hearings? Who was it that led the CIA before that pretty much ensuring the overthrow of dictators we didn't find appealing and installing puppets? GHWB had far more impact during the Reagan years than some give him credit for. Hell, after Ronnie went off his rocker he pretty much was all we had in the Executive. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ I have my history down just fine thank you.

Um. You appear to have lost the plot.

1. You were arguing that the Clinton administration and the G.H.W.B administration were tarred by scandals, in contrast to the Reagan administration.

But the main scandal you identified, Iran-Contra, was a Reagan administration scandal.

So your OMG! Bush the Elder was VP then is really beside the point. (And your "but he used to be the head of the CIA in the 70s" is even less relevant.)

2. If you read the Walsh report that you linked, you'd know it is rather scant on condemning evidence against Bush the Elder. (Not because Bush the Elder was not involved, but because the investigation was incomplete.)

3. Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Reagan Administration was one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in modern history. See, e.g., link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals). So this implication that Obama will be a "uniter" like Reagan and unlike Clinton is rather facetious.

I'll narrowly focus on this just to point out that 1) it wasn't a Republican who famously announced that "The era of Big Government is over", or reformed welfare, or signed NAFTA, or signed the Freedom to Farm Act, or DOMA, and 2) no Democrat in the era stretching from FDR to Carter would have done those things. What changed? Well, people responded to and subscribed to Reagan's thinking on the subject. Where he was silent on some issues, they responded to proxies that reinforced Reagan's zeitgeist. Clinton did what other Democrats did not in no small part because he was working in an era where everyone remembered Reagan's lessons, while no one thought that there was anything of value to be had from the old liberal guard.

Now, you've probably seen me enough to know that I don't find welfare reform, NAFTA, Freedom to Farm, or DOMA particularly good pieces of work. I am in no way complimenting the Republicans or Reagan for the quality of the work they produced. The closest you will ever see me come to complimenting Reagan would be to say that he corrected excesses in the old liberal system, but that the need for these cures has far outlasted the disease that inspired them, and in fact we've developed a dependency on the idea that deficits don't matter and tax cuts cure all fiscal problems.

If you look at what Obama said, what I've said seems little more than a blunted form of what he said. If the above is true, though, then yes, you have to say that Reagan was transformative in a way that Nixon and Clinton were not. Clinton is most charitably described as a president who managed to sneak some progressive elements into a conservative public era, just as Nixon was able to slip some conservative views about crime and punishment into an otherwise very liberal timeframe. Neither changed the public zeitgeist, but only worked within it. Reagan, however, either changed it or embodied the change, depending on who you talk to. If so, then his governing was fundamentally different.

Odd. I though the argument was that Obama was a new tranformative wave like Reagan and unlike Clinton. That he would appeal to Independents and Republicans and not just Democrats.

But then you criticize Pres. Clinton for not having stayed in lock-step with historical Democrats. For believing in some moderate ideas that had wide-spread appeal.

Regardless, I'm not sure why so many of you seem to want to lionize Ronald Reagan. He wasn't a great President. His administration was terrible for this country.

*snip*

You make some good points and I appreciate your position and your passion.

I'm not going to continue with some argument about whether Obama is better than Clinton, because I'm not convinced either way yet. You proffer some good reasons why I should land on the Obama side of the fence.

I'm just saying that this "OMG the Clintons attacked Obama. How dare they?" whining is the least attractive viewpoint put forth by Obama supporters. Villifying the Clintons doesn't enamor me to Obama.

But then you criticize Pres. Clinton for not having stayed in lock-step with historical Democrats. For believing in some moderate ideas that had wide-spread appeal.

I believe the point was that Clinton followed the direction that Reagan had begun in many things. Much of the welfare reform under Clinton, as an example, was targeted at Reagan's "welfare queen." NAFTA was a move toward free markets. DOMA was a continuation of discrimination against homosexuals These sorts of things didn't represent a fundamentally different direction for the country. They were continuations of the direction the country had had for a decade.

That doesn't, of course, mean that Clinton was a bad president or even that he wasn't a good president. It just means that he wasn't the type of transformative president Obama was talking about. And, as Obama said, that likely has a great deal to do with the times.

Regardless, I'm not sure why so many of you seem to want to lionize Ronald Reagan. He wasn't a great President. His administration was terrible for this country.

Interestingly enough, Obama has largely agreed with you on that last sentence. Being a transformative leader doesn't mean that one leads in the best direction.

Villifying the Clintons doesn't enamor me to Obama.


The Clinton's villify themselves. Obama merely states the obvious.


I liked Bill as a president in the 90's. I do not like him lately.

You make some good points and I appreciate your position and your passion.

I'm not going to continue with some argument about whether Obama is better than Clinton, because I'm not convinced either way yet. You proffer some good reasons why I should land on the Obama side of the fence.

I'm just saying that this "OMG the Clintons attacked Obama. How dare they?" whining is the least attractive viewpoint put forth by Obama supporters. Villifying the Clintons doesn't enamor me to Obama.

Nor should it. No matter how bad one candidate is, their failings do not make the others better. A candidate stands or falls based on that candidate's own traits.

But I, for one, am turned off to a candidate when dirty tactics are used. There are legitimate differences between the candidates. They don't need to misrepresent each other's words when they could point out those legitimate differences - and why they think their positions are better.

And believe me, I'm not saying that Obama is completely immune. I do think, however, that he has tried to minimize this type of bickering - to stay away from negative campaigning. But it is rather difficult not to fall into it once it has begun. I don't think Clinton has made that same effort. And I do think it affects her ability to be an effective president, because it is reminiscent, to me, of Bush and his tactics.

What surprises me most about this poll is that people actually said, "no."

Even the most vehement supporters of Clinton don't delude themselves that much.
Now, for those naive people out there who do actually believe Clinton tells the truth (and that Obama is infallible) here is a great link.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/peas_in_a_pod.html

That being said, I still support Obama for president.

Would it be wrong to make a shirt that says "Its not okay to vote Clinton" (I was inspired by a shirt that read "Its not okay to be emo"

Um. You appear to have lost the plot.

1. You were arguing that the Clinton administration and the G.H.W.B administration were tarred by scandals, in contrast to the Reagan administration.

But the main scandal you identified, Iran-Contra, was a Reagan administration scandal.

So your OMG! Bush the Elder was VP then is really beside the point. (And your "but he used to be the head of the CIA in the 70s" is even less relevant.)

2. If you read the Walsh report that you linked, you'd know it is rather scant on condemning evidence against Bush the Elder. (Not because Bush the Elder was not involved, but because the investigation was incomplete.)

3. Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Reagan Administration was one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in modern history. See, e.g., link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals). So this implication that Obama will be a "uniter" like Reagan and unlike Clinton is rather facetious.

Ok, one more time from the top. I did not like Ronald Reagan or his policies. I liked Bush the elder better but not much. Clinton was my favorite of the three.

read this (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/110500b.html)

Now that I've cleared that up... Ronald Reagan was a leader and people followed. Ronald Reagan set the nation on a fundamentally different course. He changed the focus of this country and its government. He was powerful, charismatic, and a true salesmen of his vision. I know Reagan and Iran Contra sucked, as well as his manipulation of the Iran Hostage Crisis (http://www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html). Regardless of his policies he was a powerful leader who made things happen in his favor. I did not love Reagan, but he and the Republicans of 1994 pushed forth their agenda in a way that changed America. Please tell me you are following me now.

Back to the topic, Bill Clinton attacked Barack Obama and needs to back out of his wife's campaign. At the current time he is more of a hindrance then help. Bill Clinton is doing what he does better than anyone else. He is spinning, and this time out of control.

I am not very clued up when it comes to American Politics, but it is obvious that at least one of the Clintons would and did lie....

But I would find a small bit of irony, justice and mirth if Hilary made it to office, promptly had a lesbian affair and turned to her husband saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, same as you."

Have they ever lied? Oh... right...:rolleyes:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Well it would seem that Hillary and Bill were not merely making mistaken claims but lying about Barack Obama. The Clintons are no better than Bush and Karl Rove were in 2000 and 2004. If you want to beat someone based on the issues than do your best. This is precisely what Barack speaks out against. The politics of fear and smear must come to an end for America to realize its true potential. We can do better! We should do better! We cannot allow the Clintons to keep the cycle of polarity going. It's time for us to truly come together in a sea of red and blue. If you want America to continue in the toxic system where you need veto proof majorities to get anything done then vote for Hillary. Choose something different for a change. Hell, almost 3 decades of Clintons and Bushes are enough for me.

Is the sky blue?
Is water wet?
Does a bear shit in the woods? And if so, if no one is around does it stink?

Once you have the answer to these questions, you have the answer about yours...