Letters to the Editor
-
Of course!
Of course only Obama's plan is good... its the only one penned by God himself!
Plans are good *because* they come from Obama; Obama only has good plans. This is a true fact!
Plans are bad *because* they come from Clinton; Clinton only has bad plans. This is also a true fact!
There, did I sum it up nicely?
And I did it with far fewer words.
So tired of the echo chamber.
-
@ ciccina
And I'm so tired of lazy thinkers with nothing to offer but straw men.
Is that all you got?
-
Leonard saves Salon from Bias
When a Salon article favors Obama, then finally thank the political Gods, Salon is no longer biased and it's Change We Can Believe In. If that doesn't work, blame the Clintons. Yeah, thats new.
But Reagan was effective at getting his vision implemented.
So what? So was Hitler. Being able to set direction and influence people is a primary competency for an executive, but there are plenty of powerfully influential executives who screw things up royally on a daily basis. Example number one: Bush does not know crap about crap but continues to be able to push thru thoughtless short-sighted agendas.
Obama setting a "vision" of "regulating" corporations is the same empty rhetoric as McCain espouses with his "taxes are bad" BS. We are going to have regulations and we are going to have taxes. We need to pick a leader that can most effectively determine which taxes, laws, or regulations to implement and which to rescind that best suit the greater health of society. We are not doing that, our elections in the age of media is now more than ever based on cult of personality and bumper stickers.
The more I participate in politics the more I am convinced that politics and religion were invented only so we would not either all kill each other or not all jump off of a cliff without at least discussing it first.
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Alex, please calm down. In your frenzy to elect Obama, you're losing what little objectivity you ever had.
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Alex, Andrew, you're all the same.
-
CAn we PLEASE, ONCE
have a comments section that isn't lowest common denominator trolling of the "_____ is unelectable because of talking points A, B, through Q" variety? This is pathetic. There are plenty of horse race threads to pollute - this one has a chance to be something more.
Saying nothing negatively about HRC's economic ideas (about which I haven't read yet) I have to say O seems to have the right idea. Which is that, while self-interest and economic freedom may be the *engine* of growth, an engine without a responsible driver at the wheel isn't much good. Ob rightly sees one role of government as providing guidance for markets while imposing as little inefficiency as possible. As I wrote elsewhere, Laissez Faire econ is more of a religion than a basis of sound policy. Obama clearly gets it, and his speech today is insightful in the same manner as his speech on race.
I was ready to throw in the towel after the Wright affair - my primary interesting is in preserving the supreme court from the likes of Scalia, and therefore I'll vote for the dem nominee even if we nominate a cockroach - but it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama really is the best candidate on the basis of his intelligence.
-
More On The Clinton Legacy
Hey weeping for brunnhilde, thanks! At least I've got one fan in the world!
You are downplaying some things, conflating others, attributing long term trends to Clinton and making meaningless assertions like "the Clinton Administration also presided over the Enron fiasco, the cancerous growth of mortgage scam factories like Ameriquest and Countrywide." "Presided"? What does the even mean? That the Clinton admin was responsible for the Enron situation and the Ameriquest and Countrywide mortgage scams? Nonsense.
If you're running the show, you're responsible for whatever happens on your watch. That's what leadership means. The Clinton Administration not only failed to use the tools at their disposal to prevent the mess we've found ourselves in today, they aided and abetted the crooks who caused it.
What things am I "downplaying"? I factually stated what happened during the Clinton Administration to our economy, and the results of policies the Clintons not only permitted, but actively embraced (like NAFTA, which the administration lobbied for against bipartisan resistance in Congress, or borrowing against the Social Security trust - hope you like getting your retirement benefits in the form of IOU's signed by Bill Clinton).
What "meaningless assertions" did I make? The Clinton Administration had 8 years to reign in the excesses of Wall Street crooks and of phony lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide, with their increasingly predatory lending practices and securitization of mortgage debt. Gee, I don't suppose their failure to act would have anything to do with the massive amounts of cash the Arnalls at Ameriquest raised for the Clintons, do you?
The Clinton Administration signed off on the repeal of regulations which had protected businesses and investors from widescale fraud for more than a generation. Brilliant. They supported the strong dollar policy, which benefited Wall Street and the moneycenter banks at the expense of our once robust manufacturing economy and the high-paying jobs it once provided. Brilliant. They allowed the Fed to inflate a massive asset bubble under the misleadership of that obvious hack Greenspan. Brilliant. They presided over massive trade deficits, stagnant incomes, questionable to fraudulent accounting in both the private and public sector and an explosion in consumer debt. Brilliant.
It's funny how Hillary is supposedly running on her "experience", but whenever you point out the disastrous results of the Clinton Administration's policies and its mismanagement of important issues like the economy or the disintegration of the Soviet Union, suddenly the Clintons aren't responsible for any of it, even the stuff that happened on their watch. If they were just helpless spectators, how useful is all of that experience? You might as well elect a potted plant to the White House.
Turning to Hillary to help rebuild the economy would be like calling Dr. Kevorkian to help your sick grandmother - useful only if you're looking to euthanize the patient, not cure them. We need somebody philosophically opposed to the laissez-faire madness of the past 30 years, not two of its most prominent enablers, Bill and Hillary Clinton.