I'm confused. Are you saying that Hillary is the same as Bill? And that we can expect similar gains if she's elected? I was under the silly impression that Bill was the president from '92-'00 and that Hillary would be president from '08-?, if elected. Unless you are saying that they were running the country TOGETHER during the first two terms and would again run the country TOGETHER in the future, I don't see how any of this is relevant. And if they were running the country together, wouldn't that sort of verify what the nutty right wing was saying all along, that Hillary had way too much power in Bill's adminstration when she held no elected office?
Sorry, I started out supporting Hillary, but Edwards and Dodd are the only two people I see pointing out the real problem and danger in this country right now: the corporate powers have us by the throats and are about to cut off our air for good. I don't see how Hillary can be fed by these powers on her road to the WH and then just turn on them once she's elected. Maybe the Clintons weren't so entangled with these powers during the first go around, but they sure are now.
Posted by turtleguy at December 19, 2007 07:25 AMMy goodness eriposte,
Please try a little decaf! I have always respected both your and your work ethic. You dig deeper and work harder than just about any other poster I regularly read.
However, your obvious passion and advocacy has begun to affect your rhetoric. If it seems that everyone else has left the reservation, perhaps it's just that they don't seem to see the same picture you are so busy building. There ARE other possible ways to interpret or understand many of the facts you tirelessly dig up for our delectation. When the elections are over, we all need to get behind the Democrat and SUPPORT him or her. The alternative is suicidal.
Please, continue to advocate for Hillary as you have every right to do, but let's not denigrate a candidate who may well be our standard bearer with florid constructions such as, The Other Person Who Cannot be Named Any More TM. I believe very few folks at the Left Coaster are ranting about the Terrible Bush/Clinton Dynasty other than you.
Of course, it's not just you. Because I respect your work, I'm addressing you and incidentally, any others whose passion is getting beyond their probity. Can't we all just get along?
Posted by DeminNewJ at December 19, 2007 07:30 AM"...Exactly why is an interesting question, but the empirical fact is that over the past generation the only good years for lower and middle income families were when a Democrat was in the White House...."
Bill Clinton increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, to the benefit of millions of low-income workers and increased marginal tax rates on those earning over $140k. All without a single Republican't vote, I might add.
And top-earners didn't do poorly by any measure. Clinton tripled the stock market from when he took office. Any takers on a bet that W's DJIA will break 30k by 01/21/2009? Scout? jj?
I didn't think so.
Thus began the longest-lasting economic boom in American history, bar none. Longer than Saint Reagan's 1982-89 boom (but first, of course, he had to put the American economy into its biggest recession since the Great Depression). Longer than JFK/LBJ's guns 'n butter boom of 1961-69.
Wow, big mystery, huh?
Posted by bartcopfan at December 19, 2007 07:54 AMregarding the Marsh article...its been obvious for weeks that the GOP heirarchy is working overtime to get the nomination for Obama. I think the reason is clear....they know they can beat him. They don't know they can beat Clinton or Edwards. I think they are putting the word out to keep Edwards' name out of the Media glare.
It's been said over and over that a Clinton candidacy would drive GOP base (Clinton Haters) to the polls in record numbers. But what will really drive the GOP base to the polls in record numbers is the prospect of a Black Man being president. They get 100% of their 25% of the total electorate out to vote, and we'll be saddled with another 8 years of lunacy. They know a Black Dem candidate would do that.
So is Mary below looking positively on what Paul Krugman had to say end eriposte looking negatively? If he has "completely lost it", then how can Mary have anything of a point in the open thread?
Posted by peter at December 19, 2007 08:00 AM"I believe very few folks at the Left Coaster are ranting about the Terrible Bush/Clinton Dynasty other than you."
Not really picking on this comment, it'll just seem that way.
I read several left-leaning blogs so it's difficult for me to remember what I've read only at TLC. But I can report that the "Bush/Clinton dynasty" meme is reasonably well-represented in the left blogosphere.
And my comment remains that, unless one can show where they opposed W in Y2K on anti-dynastic grounds they should, IMHO, STFU on the subject.
I'm sick and tired of always having to jump to fulfill Republican't expectations. If they or their concern trolls are worried about dynasties, then they shouldn't have run W.
Period.
Posted by bartcopfan at December 19, 2007 08:04 AMsomething very interesting via Burnt Orange Report....in Fort Worth TX a Dem just won election to the state congress....in a district re-drawn by Republicans to be Republican forever. Not any more. The scams by DeLay Republicans to rig the state to always have a GOP majority down there have run afoul of Texans who have had it with the GOP. The TX Dems are now only 5 seats from a majority in the State House, an impossibility a few years ago. Cornyn is below 50% and the Gov is dissing Bush on the campaign trail (another impossibility a few years back). When Texans turn their backs on the GOP, the GOPers have a major problem nationwide.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2007 09:22 AMGreat snarky post! Surprised Geek isn't here mincing and whinging about his poor downtrodden candidate. He and his ilk are why dKos diaries about the primaries are unreadable anymore.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2007 09:47 AMT2, you're dreaming, really. Nobody facing off against Cornyn, the real candidate got scared off after investing some 6 million looking into it. And I think you're mis-representing state districts, they weren't drawn or redrawn recently.
Shame about Dennis K's brother, hope it wasn't about any foul play.
Posted by peter at December 19, 2007 10:30 AMDeminNJ,
The sarcasm is because if I actually spell out the names of Clinton's opponents, I'm "attacking them" according to some readers. You do realize that it is not exactly easy to point out the flaws of candidates without pointing out that they are flawed, right? And just because I highlight any flaws doesn't mean that I won't support them if they are the nominee - so I don't see what one has to do with the other. Hillary is being pilloried on multiple blogs and in the media - and I don't see you or any other critics come out in force defending her name on these comment threads. Maybe you have, but I guess since I'm a Hillary supporter, different rules apply to me.
Posted by eriposte at December 19, 2007 10:57 AMT2, I saw that this morning, too. Yep, the GOP brand is beginning to be recalled by the manufacturer as dangerous to our health and welfare. I also heard Rove's peddling a book and no one gives a shit. Total losers, them and anyone who supports them.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 19, 2007 10:59 AMTurtleguy,
Not sure if we are on the same planet, but Sen. Clinton is often attacked by linking her to the 1990s and how Bill was a triangulator and sold out progressives and therefore - she cannot be trusted to do the right thing since she's another Clinton. Not to mention, Hillary had a pretty influential hand on a number of initiatives during the Clinton administration - so I think we should stop pretending that she was a quiet housewife during those years.
Also, please take a moment to click the links I include in the post...like the one on "Bush/Clinton dynasty". You will find more context when you do that.
In fact, Robert Borosage just compared the Clinton years as being an extension of the Bush I years in a Matt Bai article in the NYT.
Posted by eriposte at December 19, 2007 11:02 AMpetertroll, they were re-drawn in 2001. don't show your stupidity on something so easily disproved.
Posted by T2 at December 19, 2007 12:25 PMIf you're meaning the redraw every decade, sure, but that has nothing to do with Delay. He's a villian to some of you because of another redraw of Congressional Districts, not State Legislature Districts. State districts didn't get near the attention as the Congressional Districts. The lines aren't anywhere near guaranteeing one party or the other.
BOR's a great place to go if you're a Democrat, they're very well connected for a bunch of UT College kids in Austin. Several of them work or clerk for some of the Reps there. They do get rather optimistic.
Posted by peter at December 19, 2007 01:48 PMDuh. Amen, sister! I think....
I'm not sure I'm untangling the riddles wrapped in snark and tied with sarcasm. I suppose it's on our side (yay, Clintons, let's get them back!)
Has anyone done a file of quotes from the 90s about Hillary being too powerful, a two-fer? I remember them being attacked for that late in the 1992 campaign. And surely in Arkansas -- I've got a quote from an Ark conservative about "We done elected the wrong Clinton" in praise of her education reform.
Eriposte,
You're certainly right about my not defending Hillary on this, or any other board, since she's my last choice, for reasons I believe Ive spelled out very clearly.
If I thought she was taking completely false flak, I would say it's untrue, but the cries of being a poor, abused Hillary supporter in a cruel blogworld, ring a little hollow. The Left Coaster especially, has been tilted toward the Clinton candidacy rather clearly for some time.
Sure, there are plenty of blogs where bashing occurs. That's why I tend to blog much less than normal during primary season. Far too many people lose (at least) some measure of objectivity in their passionate advocacy.
I was actually only responding to the tone of your rhetoric this morning. It was just a reaction to what I read as I began my workday and had a few moment to read some posts. No politician is qualified to cast the proverbial first stone. The all come equipped with warts and baggage. Perspective is required in intelligent discussion of the issues. You needn't be so defensive.
Posted by DeminNewJ at December 19, 2007 06:50 PMDeminNJ,
With due respect, someone attacks me or my writing and when I explain it I get comments like "You needn't be so defensive". I'm not complaining mind you - this is what I expected when I declared myself to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton - to be put in a position that one can do nothing right when one's writings in some manner or the other defend Hillary Clinton from criticisms or attacks on her record or her character.
It has become unacceptable in some circles to defend Hillary *on the merits* and it has become completely unacceptable to defend Hillary *on the merits* by pointing out that her opponents are hypocritical or wrong. This is the dynamic I'm observing day in and day out.
I'm not sure what about my tone offended you - and I will certainly apologize if it did, but my post was intended to be more sarcastic than mean, so maybe you can tell me what I did wrong.
Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at December 19, 2007 07:24 PM
e,
I posted a long comment on your previous post about Edwards putting up a website about planting.
There's no doubt that the media has bashed Hillary, and Bill, for years. That's because the media sucks. But bloggers aren't the media. Just ask any of those stellar media personalities you cited in this post.
Frankly, I flat out don't agree with your conclusions in all of the cases you present that Obama and Edwards are hypocrits or wrong. If that means I'm attacking you, then so be it. I'm not, but if your opinion based on your facts is the only correct opinion, then I'll be attacking you quite often.
Posted by Duckman GR at December 19, 2007 10:30 PMWe can now look forward to Chelsea and George P. running in the future, why not, they only have our best interest at heart. Tennessee will love, the Hatfields and McCoys in DC.
Posted by peter at December 20, 2007 04:12 AMTurtleguy: On the anti-corporate stance of Edwards, what exactly will happen to the corporations when he "wins"? They'll disappear and we'll all be out of work? We'll start making our own cars and medication?
And how will he win? Sue them all, one by one?
Posted by logic101 at December 20, 2007 08:00 AMGreat post, as usual. Thanks.
Posted by Masslib at December 20, 2007 01:21 PMDuckman,
Just got a chance to read your earlier comment and the one above. Thanks for taking the time to explain where you are coming from.
Let me put it this way - I don't know how carefully you've been reading my posts on what Obama and Edwards (I'd say it is mostly Obama and less Edwards) have been saying about Clinton, but Obama started with some pretty nasty character attacks saying she was lying because she said social security should be addressed through fiscal discipline and a bipartisan commission. This was a key theme of his campaign for a while. This was not in any way a criticism on the substance of her policy but something they just made up against her to exploit his image that he is the "truth-teller". This was the first major warning flag. Second, we clearly disagree on what hypocrisy means. That is OK because different people may have different notions on what hypocrisy means. I am very convinced that Obama in particular is extremely hypocritical in his attacks on Hillary and I have too many examples to list here, but if you believe my examples don't prove it, you are entitled to that opinion and we can agree to disagree.
My point about personal attack has nothing to do with your disagreeing with me on what I am writing. It was the tone - that I'm somehow trying to "destroy" the other candidates. In your latest comment in the other post you have clarified that this was too strong a word and you didn't mean to say that. OK, I accept your clarification and with that I also withdraw my claim that your words came across like a personal attack on me.
I have no problem with anyone writing comments here criticizing my work itself or challenging my conclusions. I will make what I believe is a logical and strong defense but if it doesn't convince my critics so be it. This is part of debate and democracy and I'm always open to hearing the opinions of people who are in complete disagreement with me because I do learn from them as well.
Not sure if this helps clarify my position, but I appreciate your taking the time to give me feedback and I'm always open to listening to reasonable critics like you.
As for bloggers v. media, again, one of the reasons blogs became more successful is because the media was not doing its job. I see few prominent bloggers making an effort to systematically debunk false or misleading criticisms of Clinton and I decided I would. So, not sure what your point is about blogs v. the media.
Posted by eriposte at December 20, 2007 09:45 PM