Poll
Question:
Comparing Bill Clinton's 8 years against Obama's 3+, who is the better president?
Option 1: Bill Clinton
votes: 26
Option 2: Barack Obama
votes: 7
Straight-up vote. Who's better?
Apples and mangoes.
Bill.
Domestically - Clinton, Foreign Policy - Obama
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2012, 10:38:52 PM
Domestically - Clinton, Foreign Policy - Obama
:wacko:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2012, 10:38:52 PM
Domestically - Clinton, Foreign Policy - Obama
I give them a draw on FP, but definitely agree that Clinton's DP (lulz) is better.
Wouldn't Bubba's 1st administration be a better barometer? If so, it's a push. Both have been messy legislatively.
And as much as the GOP hates the HNIC, at least they haven't managed to impeach him. Yet.
Newt was more entertaining as a super villan than Boehner.
Quote from: Viking on June 07, 2012, 05:52:25 AM
Newt was more entertaining as a super villan than Boehner.
That's because Boehner's not really a villian. He's more like Eric Roberts to the Teabaggers' Jokers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 05:56:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 07, 2012, 05:52:25 AM
Newt was more entertaining as a super villan than Boehner.
That's because Boehner's not really a villian. He's more like Eric Roberts to the Teabaggers' Jokers.
Bubba vs. The Mastermind Divorceé
would make for a much better movie than
The Magic Negro vs. Crybaby
8 years v 3 years, I'd say Bill. Judging their first term alone, I'd say Obama.
Never got the Clinton love.
Clinton had it much easier, so it's hard to compare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 05:51:19 AM
Wouldn't Bubba's 1st administration be a better barometer? If so, it's a push. Both have been messy legislatively.
A push? Clinton wisely adjusted his strategy after getting beaten up in the 1994 mid-terms while Obama seems to have ignored that example.
I'd say Obama is a better campaigner than Clinton, but Clinton is way better a politician once he's in office.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 05:51:19 AM
Wouldn't Bubba's 1st administration be a better barometer? If so, it's a push. Both have been messy legislatively.
A push? Clinton wisely adjusted his strategy after getting beaten up in the 1994 mid-terms while Obama seems to have ignored that example.
Obama could adjust his strategy in a dozen different ways, the fact of the matter is he's never going to accomplish anything with a House whose public stated goal is to make him a one-term President. They will never let him accomplish anything, regardless how he comes at them. Even Clinton didn't have that sort of obtuse resistance.
QuoteI'd say Obama is a better campaigner than Clinton, but Clinton is way better a politician once he's in office.
Obama's good and can energize a crowd, but I think your memory's a little hazy on exactly how much of a rock star status Bubba truly had at his rallies.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
I'd say Obama is a better campaigner than Clinton, but Clinton is way better a politician once he's in office.
Obama passed healthcare reform which is huge and he's had a far, far more successful foreign policy in his first term - in more challenging times too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 09:15:20 AM
Obama passed healthcare reform which is huge and he's had a far, far more successful foreign policy in his first term - in more challenging times too.
I'm not sure I'd categorize it as "more challenging times" than Bubba's first term; Clinton had the unfortunate task of attempting to redefine what precisely America's foreign policy meta strategy would be in the post-Cold War era when there was really no consensus on either side of the aisle; the rampdown from GW1 and Iraqi containment (Northern Watch/Southern Watch/Desert Fox), the pressure of swords-into-plowshares from Congress, the immediate NATO mission so soon after the wall, and Boris Yeltsin. It took a lot time for Clinton to redefine what exactly it was going to be, which led to a lot of false starts and bad steps. Humanitarian-based interventionism? A dedicated global mission of economic freedom of the seas? It never truly seemed to gel.
Obama, on the other hand, had inherited a very specific (albeit substantially more hostile) foreign policy mission with 3 wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and GWOT that at least had established templates to follow.
Clinton's foreign policy concerns were unenviable as far as Presidencies go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:13:14 AM
Obama could adjust his strategy in a dozen different ways, the fact of the matter is he's never going to accomplish anything with a House whose public stated goal is to make him a one-term President. They will never let him accomplish anything, regardless how he comes at them.
If that were true (it's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it), the smart thing would be for Obama to try the Clinton approach, which would force the evil GOP to vote against their own agenda.
Too bad Obama's own narcissism clouds his political judgment. Clinton was a narcissist as well, but a smart enough politician to not always believe his own BS.
QuoteObama's good and can energize a crowd, but I think your memory's a little hazy on exactly how much of a rock star status Bubba truly had at his rallies.
Sure, he did fine with the soccer moms & whatnot. But nowhere near the messianic presence Obama had at his rallies. And of course Obama actually convinced a majority of voters to vote for him.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
But nowhere near the messianic presence Obama had at his rallies.
It's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:39:57 AM
Obama, on the other hand, had inherited a very specific (albeit substantially more hostile) foreign policy mission with 3 wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and GWOT that at least had established templates to follow.
Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT (and Iran) are the obvious ones. I think Obama's also had to deal with the more long-term systemic problems like Europe, rising China and the Arab uprisings. So far I think he's been pretty good on both fronts.
QuoteIf that were true (it's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it), the smart thing would be for Obama to try the Clinton approach, which would force the evil GOP to vote against their own agenda.
Broadly I agree. But on specifics, I think their agendas moved. I mean Obamacare is broadly very similar to Republican proposals in the 90s.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
And of course Obama actually convinced a majority of voters to vote for him.
Well he does score points for promising to do a bunch of things that he not only did not do, not too unexpected, but immediately went out and did exactly the opposite...which was suprising even for a politician.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
But nowhere near the messianic presence Obama had at his rallies.
It's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it. :P
I think you missed some of it due to your momentary bout of Hillarism.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 10:11:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
But nowhere near the messianic presence Obama had at his rallies.
It's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it. :P
I think you missed some of it due to your momentary bout of Hillarism.
:lol: :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 09:52:41 AM
Broadly I agree. But on specifics, I think their agendas moved. I mean Obamacare is broadly very similar to Republican proposals in the 90s.
That Chafee bill is about as relevant as other half-assed legislation the GOP proposed in the 80s or 70s or 60s.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 09:15:20 AM
Obama passed healthcare reform which is huge
I don't know, not with what we got and its legal status in question.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:13:14 AM
Obama could adjust his strategy in a dozen different ways, the fact of the matter is he's never going to accomplish anything with a House whose public stated goal is to make him a one-term President. They will never let him accomplish anything, regardless how he comes at them.
If that were true (it's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it), the smart thing would be for Obama to try the Clinton approach, which would force the evil GOP to vote against their own agenda.
Too bad Obama's own narcissism clouds his political judgment. Clinton was a narcissist as well, but a smart enough politician to not always believe his own BS.
QuoteObama's good and can energize a crowd, but I think your memory's a little hazy on exactly how much of a rock star status Bubba truly had at his rallies.
Sure, he did fine with the soccer moms & whatnot. But nowhere near the messianic presence Obama had at his rallies. And of course Obama actually convinced a majority of voters to vote for him.
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Do you really think a post like that contributes to any kind of meaningful discussion?
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Do you really think a post like that contributes to any kind of meaningful discussion?
I'm guessing that was his point.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Siege, on the other hand, thinks we are all becoming super liberals. There is just no pleasing anybody.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
:huh: Just trying to point out how Clinton was a much better president than Obama is.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
:huh: Just trying to point out how Clinton was a much better president than Obama is.
That is something Fox News would agree with. See, Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to run again. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2012, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
:huh: Just trying to point out how Clinton was a much better president than Obama is.
That is something Fox News would agree with. See, Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to run again. :contract:
:blush: You caught me.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Do you really think a post like that contributes to any kind of meaningful discussion?
Probably not, but neither do posts full of talking points. Messianic? Narcissistic? Leave that sort of garbage to Rush.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Do you really think a post like that contributes to any kind of meaningful discussion?
Probably not, but neither do posts full of talking points. Messianic? Narcissistic? Leave that sort of garbage to Rush.
Or... Hillary ;)
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 10:40:12 AM
:rolleyes: I think you missed a couple of Fox News talking points in here. You're quickly becoming a toilet for the all the shit Republican strategists squeeze out.
Do you really think a post like that contributes to any kind of meaningful discussion?
To be fair, Spicey's overblown rhetoric obviously wasn't intended to contribute to any kind of a meaningful discussion, either.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2012, 12:06:33 PM
To be fair, Spicey's overblown rhetoric obviously wasn't intended to contribute to any kind of a meaningful discussion, either.
He had me at Whore Pills. :wub:
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
Probably not, but neither do posts full of talking points. Messianic? Narcissistic? Leave that sort of garbage to Rush.
What sort of test do you use to decide if a statement is full of talking points or not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2012, 01:56:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
Probably not, but neither do posts full of talking points. Messianic? Narcissistic? Leave that sort of garbage to Rush.
What sort of test do you use to decide if a statement is full of talking points or not?
It's like pornography. Sometimes you just know that a certain argument, characterization, or description has originally been devised somewhere deep in the bowels of political strategist, and almost overnight becomes repeated all over the place.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
It's like pornography.
Wow, and we thought Brain was weird. :x
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
It's like pornography. Sometimes you just know that a certain argument, characterization, or description has originally been devised somewhere deep in the bowels of political strategist, and almost overnight becomes repeated all over the place.
So you don't think there was any sort of messianic tone to the buzz around Obama during his 2008 campaign? Believe it or not, I didn't mean anything partisan in saying what I said about that. Just making an observation that Obama seemed to be a better campaigner than Bill Clinton.
Re: narcissism, that choice of word may or may not be over the top, but I should say that I think most politicians are narcissists to some degree.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
most politicians are narcissists to some degree.
Truer words have never been spoken. :sleep:
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
It's like pornography. Sometimes you just know that a certain argument, characterization, or description has originally been devised somewhere deep in the bowels of political strategist, and almost overnight becomes repeated all over the place.
That's nothing like pornography. :lol:
Repetition is a good one, I use that myself. Not really sure if messianic and narcisisstic pass that test though.
Another good one is a conclusion that the stater can't justify.
Quote from: merithyn on June 07, 2012, 02:29:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
most politicians are narcissists to some degree.
Truer words have never been spoken. :sleep:
But of course. If you had any sense, you'd just opt for private enterprise.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 10:35:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 09:15:20 AM
Obama passed healthcare reform which is huge
I don't know, not with what we got and its legal status in question.
I'd agree that it's huge. A huge mistake, IMO, but huge none-the-less.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 09:39:57 AM
Obama, on the other hand, had inherited a very specific (albeit substantially more hostile) foreign policy mission with 3 wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and GWOT that at least had established templates to follow.
Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT (and Iran) are the obvious ones. I think Obama's also had to deal with the more long-term systemic problems like Europe, rising China and the Arab uprisings. So far I think he's been pretty good on both fronts.
Yeah, there've been some changes, but I think Clinton having to deal with the consequences of the collapse of the order of the world for a half-century was a bit bigger deal than China becoming wealthy by selling us plastic things or a bunch of Arabs replacing their dictators with new dictators.
QuoteQuoteIf that were true (it's not, at least not to the extent that you believe it), the smart thing would be for Obama to try the Clinton approach, which would force the evil GOP to vote against their own agenda.
Broadly I agree. But on specifics, I think their agendas moved. I mean Obamacare is broadly very similar to Republican proposals in the 90s.
Absolutely. The 90s Republicans still had some of the respectable Nixonians, but by now they're all dead or purged.
Bill is way cooler than Barack.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
It's like pornography. Sometimes you just know that a certain argument, characterization, or description has originally been devised somewhere deep in the bowels of political strategist, and almost overnight becomes repeated all over the place.
So you don't think there was any sort of messianic tone to the buzz around Obama during his 2008 campaign? Believe it or not, I didn't mean anything partisan in saying what I said about that. Just making an observation that Obama seemed to be a better campaigner than Bill Clinton.
I didn't see it and the only time I have ever heard it mentioned is by the right and others who have always been very anti-Obama. That said I try not to follow this kind of stuff on a daily basis.
Quote from: sbr on June 09, 2012, 01:17:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
So you don't think there was any sort of messianic tone to the buzz around Obama during his 2008 campaign? Believe it or not, I didn't mean anything partisan in saying what I said about that. Just making an observation that Obama seemed to be a better campaigner than Bill Clinton.
I didn't see it and the only time I have ever heard it mentioned is by the right and others who have always been very anti-Obama. That said I try not to follow this kind of stuff on a daily basis.
There was a buzz; it was the "oh wow we could actually have a black President, neato" buzz, which, quite frankly, could be misinterpreted by racist righties as "messianic" compared to their hasn't-been-cool-since-2000 nominee and his psycho illiterate girlfriend running mate.
There totally was messianic buzz as the super negro that could save us from the long darkness of Bush (which also including McCain even though he wasn't Bush).
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
And of course Obama actually convinced a majority of voters to vote for him.
Well he does score points for promising to do a bunch of things that he not only did not do, not too unexpected, but immediately went out and did exactly the opposite...which was suprising even for a politician.
we have that happen all the time here
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
There totally was messianic buzz as the super negro that could save us from the long darkness of Bush (which also including McCain even though he wasn't Bush).
That was just in your tribe, though. In the real world, I didn't see it.
Both of Reagan's campaigns were messianic, but that was probably before your time. Obama's campaign had genuine enthusiasm behind it, so I suppose that, looking through certain glasses, and lacking any memory of genuinely enthusiastic campaigns, some young Republicans may have seen the campaign as messianic. Anyone with perspective could tell that person that it wasn't, though, except maybe by comparison to the stiff, negative campaigns of Gore, Bush, Lurch, and McCain.
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2012, 04:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
There totally was messianic buzz as the super negro that could save us from the long darkness of Bush (which also including McCain even though he wasn't Bush).
That was just in your tribe, though. In the real world, I didn't see it.
I guess if my tribe consisted of liberals in San Fransisco.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2012, 04:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
There totally was messianic buzz as the super negro that could save us from the long darkness of Bush (which also including McCain even though he wasn't Bush).
That was just in your tribe, though. In the real world, I didn't see it.
I guess if my tribe consisted of liberals in San Fransisco.
/I think you might be taking what derspeiss said differently. It wasn't that Obama's campaign posited him as a messiah but rather the buzz from his supporters on the ground.
And then was mocked here: http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-win-causes-obsessive-supporters-to-realize-h,14287/
:D
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 05:26:48 PM
I guess if my tribe consisted of liberals in San Fransisco.
/I think you might be taking what derspeiss said differently. It wasn't that Obama's campaign posited him as a messiah but rather the buzz from his supporters on the ground.
And then was mocked here: http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-win-causes-obsessive-supporters-to-realize-h,14287/
Responding to your own posts, now? :P
I disagree that the fact that the Onion isn't funny any more because of Obama.
If the possession of a whackjob fringe of supporters makes Obama messianic, then even the Shrub was messianic. Kinda ruins the concept of words having actual meaning, though.
Whatever you say, dear. :hug:
Eh, I think it was widespread enough that Obama himself cracked jokes about comparisons between himself and Superman and Jesus.
I don't think it was just whackjobs to be fair. I don't think Obama was that messianic and his campaign style didn't seem too out of the ordinary. I actually think his rhetoric was also far more about 'we' as in this movement/campaign/us whatever - which doesn't seem messianic.
What was unusual was the excitement of the Democrats at ending the Bush era. In addition to that they had two genuinely superb candidates duking it out to finish it who would likely be the first black or the first female President, but regardless a historic figure.
With Obama in particular I think it was stronger because a lot of people projected onto him, which was perhaps because he was a bit of a blank slate. I think many Republicans did something similar with Palin as it happens.
Blair was messianic, on his election, he opened his victory speech with the line 'a new dawn has broken, has it not'. That's even got Biblical cadence :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2012, 04:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
There totally was messianic buzz as the super negro that could save us from the long darkness of Bush (which also including McCain even though he wasn't Bush).
That was just in your tribe, though. In the real world, I didn't see it.
Both of Reagan's campaigns were messianic, but that was probably before your time.
Yes, they were. Reagan '84 was a lot of fun as far as campaigns go, actually.
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
WTF? :huh:
Al Gore was a champion of market solutions to global warming. Edwards was the economic populist. Free college for everyone!
lockbox
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2012, 07:47:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
WTF? :huh:
Al Gore was a champion of market solutions to global warming. Edwards was the economic populist. Free college for everyone!
That's a bit like saying John Kerry wasn't a moderate Massachusan, Paul Tsongas was the moderate Massachusan (I have no idea how to spell or say that). It may be true but it's really, really irrelevant.
What do you mean by market solutions though?
Also Gore's campaign was Shrum-managed so I'm going to go with CdM on this. It chimes with what I've read elsewhere too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
What do you mean by market solutions though?
Carbon pricing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
I'm glad to see you are continuing with the strawman that someone said Obama's campaign was messianic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2012, 07:47:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
WTF? :huh:
Al Gore was a champion of market solutions to global warming. Edwards was the economic populist. Free college for everyone!
And you tore him down, because you just couldn't handle his greatness.
Shame on you. Shame on America.
The only area where Clinton was better was the economy and that was largely because of external circumstances (like, the world not experiencing a global financial crisis). Obama is better on foreign policy, on gay rights (repeal DADT vs. approve DADT and DOMA), and they both fumbled health care reforms. I think Clinton gets viewed through rose-tinted glasses because to Americans in their 20s and 30s he represents the golden age, before Bush, 911, two wars and a global crisis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2012, 07:47:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
If anybody's on the left was messianic recently, it was Gore 2000; the only real economic populist, but his dire economic warnings sound too much like "we've-had-it-too-good-and-we're-not-going to-take-it-anymore!" to certain ears.
WTF? :huh:
Al Gore was a champion of market solutions to global warming. Edwards was the economic populist. Free college for everyone!
Edwards was definitely a Norma Rae, but there were very distinct criticisms of Gore's targeting of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, HMOs and the pharmaceutical industry, which hadn't changed from his '92 campaign, which diverged substantially from Clinton's, which was much more GOP-friendly.
Clinton/Gore pairing was similar to McCain/Palin in that the president was the more senior politician with a bigger centrist appeal, and the veep was younger and radical. On the other hand, Obama/Biden is more like Bush/Cheney, with the charismatic and younger president having a more senior veep whose main role is to advise the president.
Joe Biden is Joe Biden. That's all that needs to be said. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2012, 07:29:30 AM
Joe Biden is Joe Biden. That's all that needs to be said. :D
I love him. My favorite American veep since I began to notice American veeps (I don't know who was Bush Senior's veep or anyone before him. :P)
I'm a big Biden fan too:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/joe-biden-had-an-epic-waterfight-with-kids-today
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:34:52 AM
I love him. My favorite American veep since I began to notice American veeps (I don't know who was Bush Senior's veep or anyone before him. :P)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.posterenvy.com%2Fcatalog%2Fhu056thumb%2520-%2520Potatoe%2520from%2520idahoe.jpg&hash=ca19aeffb8661d6c8104b2d5d84acb0476b3b598)
And Reagan's VP was... George Herbert Walker Bush.
Mart, you really need to watch some YouTube videos of Dan Quayle. Dude was hilarious. :lol:
Also, best debate PWNAGE ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ5CIkSlUFI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ5CIkSlUFI)
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 02:12:25 AM
The only area where Clinton was better was the economy and that was largely because of external circumstances (like, the world not experiencing a global financial crisis). Obama is better on foreign policy, on gay rights (repeal DADT vs. approve DADT and DOMA), and they both fumbled health care reforms. I think Clinton gets viewed through rose-tinted glasses because to Americans in their 20s and 30s he represents the golden age, before Bush, 911, two wars and a global crisis.
Marty, I think you are off on the gay rights issue. Clinton picked up allowing gays to serve in the military when gay rights weren't an issue and didn't have widespread support. DADT was a compromise he signed which significantly liberalized the status quo. The DOMA was brought up by Republicans back when gay marriage was some fringe notion that wasn't taken seriously, and had Clinton vetoed it he would have not only looked out of touch but also probably been overridden anyway.
Views have changed so much since the early and mid 90s that what was very liberal back then is the conservative position now. I think Clinton took more risks against public opinion on gay rights than Obama has.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:15:00 AM
Clinton/Gore pairing was similar to McCain/Palin in that the president was the more senior politician with a bigger centrist appeal, and the veep was younger and radical. On the other hand, Obama/Biden is more like Bush/Cheney, with the charismatic and younger president having a more senior veep whose main role is to advise the president.
:D I don't think you were into the early 90s intricacies of American politics.
Bill Clinton was seen as an inexperienced politician, a young guy with the main experience of being governor of Arkansas (one of our shittiest states). Gore had more time on the national scene, and as a representative of Tennessee was actually somewhat conservative. With his wife he was a leader in the investigation of dangerous rock music subverting our youth, for instance. He has become a lot more radical after leaving Tennessee and elected politics.
Clinton/Gore was about two young southern (read: not liberal) democrats taking the country back for the common people during the recession.
John Travolta. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Views have changed so much since the early and mid 90s that what was very liberal back then is the conservative position now. I think Clinton took more risks against public opinion on gay rights than Obama has.
But by trying to push gays in the military (and allowing many Senate Democrats to grandstand on the issue) Clinton arguably caused more harm than good. DADT never operated as he and Powell said it would and I think had it not been for that fight in the early 90s we wouldn't have had to wait so long for gays in the military. I think DOMA was a mistake, though you could be right on the politics.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 02:12:25 AM
The only area where Clinton was better was the economy and that was largely because of external circumstances (like, the world not experiencing a global financial crisis). Obama is better on foreign policy, on gay rights (repeal DADT vs. approve DADT and DOMA), and they both fumbled health care reforms. I think Clinton gets viewed through rose-tinted glasses because to Americans in their 20s and 30s he represents the golden age, before Bush, 911, two wars and a global crisis.
Marty, I think you are off on the gay rights issue. Clinton picked up allowing gays to serve in the military when gay rights weren't an issue and didn't have widespread support. DADT was a compromise he signed which significantly liberalized the status quo. The DOMA was brought up by Republicans back when gay marriage was some fringe notion that wasn't taken seriously, and had Clinton vetoed it he would have not only looked out of touch but also probably been overridden anyway.
Views have changed so much since the early and mid 90s that what was very liberal back then is the conservative position now. I think Clinton took more risks against public opinion on gay rights than Obama has.
Could be that you are right, but I heard/read this characterisation from a lot of US gays, including ones older than me.
Admittedly, as Jon Stewart pointed out, the fact that, when Obama today takes a stand in favour of gay marriage, all that Fox News pundits can do is to accuse him of taking a popular stance and playing it to the public, just goes to show how immense the progress made over the last 10 (not to mention 20) years is.
And it's even greater in countries like Poland where we are catching up quickly.
Frankly, I can't think of a single social/equality issue in the Western history that made such huge popularity gains in such a short time. Even women and blacks took decades to get to the point of equality.
Quote from: Martinus on June 11, 2012, 05:06:54 AMFrankly, I can't think of a single social/equality issue in the Western history that made such huge popularity gains in such a short time. Even women and blacks took decades to get to the point of equality.
That's because homosexuality--unlike being black or female--is a characteristic that that's always been around the political arena. Plenty of white guys in government have been cocknibblers.
Besides, hysterical latent homosexual preachers and politicians aside, sexuality has always been considered a privacy issue. You can hide the fact you're a pillowbiter--you can't hide being Shirley Chisholm. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 11, 2012, 05:06:54 AM
Frankly, I can't think of a single social/equality issue in the Western history that made such huge popularity gains in such a short time. Even women and blacks took decades to get to the point of equality.
Don't worry. You'll never really be equal. You'll be like the guy with those big rings that stretch out his earlobes: Maybe an equal in the eyes of the law, but not really. And when the law disappears, so will he.
I can't really believe Marti.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_N2qcfhrcFIw%2FTP0yKEvPybI%2FAAAAAAAAAo0%2F3aia0Lj12zw%2Fs320%2Fobama%252Bpride.jpg&hash=d3bb3d7d80a52906d3da000281b5d672571abf22)
Interesting factoid that was just on The Daily Run Down: First US president born in a hospital? Jimmy Carter, 1924.
Seems right.
Quote from: Martinus on June 11, 2012, 05:06:54 AM
Frankly, I can't think of a single social/equality issue in the Western history that made such huge popularity gains in such a short time. Even women and blacks took decades to get to the point of equality.
That's because those efforts did most of the work for you. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2012, 08:12:50 AM
I can't really believe Marti.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_N2qcfhrcFIw%2FTP0yKEvPybI%2FAAAAAAAAAo0%2F3aia0Lj12zw%2Fs320%2Fobama%252Bpride.jpg&hash=d3bb3d7d80a52906d3da000281b5d672571abf22)
No he won't [take it up the ass] ?