Wed December 20, 2017 1:14 am
Wed December 20, 2017 1:34 am
Wed December 20, 2017 2:12 am
Wed December 20, 2017 2:13 am
BurtReynolds wrote:boring president is boring
Wed December 20, 2017 2:24 am
McParadigm wrote:I think the long term rep on that guy is gonna reach Rushmore levels.
Wed December 20, 2017 4:24 am
evenslow wrote:McParadigm wrote:I think the long term rep on that guy is gonna reach Rushmore levels.
Just for what he had to endure on a personal level and somehow not cut corners, no scandals, no major gaffes. Remarkable discipline.
Wed December 20, 2017 2:41 pm
Wed December 20, 2017 4:10 pm
I think Clinton had it worse. Newt and Ken Starr were relentless in trying to pin something on him to get him out of office. Obama was about as squeaky clean as presidents come, all that the GOP could do was obstruct.malice wrote:how would the politically literate here compare the level of opposition Obama had to work within the bounds of, with a president like Clinton?
I felt Obama's presidency was plagued from day one with opposition that makes other presidencies pale in comparison, and was impressed with the progressive efforts he made in spite of that.
Wed December 20, 2017 4:16 pm
Wed December 20, 2017 4:34 pm
bart wrote:Late stage PD levels of delusion in this thread.
Wed December 20, 2017 4:46 pm
Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton had it worse. Newt and Ken Starr were relentless in trying to pin something on him to get him out of office. Obama was about as squeaky clean as presidents come, all that the GOP could do was obstruct.malice wrote:how would the politically literate here compare the level of opposition Obama had to work within the bounds of, with a president like Clinton?
I felt Obama's presidency was plagued from day one with opposition that makes other presidencies pale in comparison, and was impressed with the progressive efforts he made in spite of that.
Wed December 20, 2017 5:25 pm
I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
Nor do I. There's always cycles for all of us on when we're more or less present.malice wrote:Thanks for your reply, though. I don't get many these days.
Wed December 20, 2017 8:27 pm
Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
Thu December 21, 2017 1:39 am
Thu December 21, 2017 8:10 pm
bart wrote:Late stage PD levels of delusion in this thread.
Thu December 21, 2017 8:30 pm
digster wrote:Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, and it what marked the difference between Obama and Clinton's tenures. There was a calcuation made early in Obama's term that the best way to acquire power again was to not work with him on anything, betting that the American people would take it out on the administration and Democrats. Unfortunately, the country had the worst possible response; it worked. Neither party has any impetus to change from the atmosphere that plagued much of the Obama administration (it's also why I think that no matter what McConnell says, the legislative filibuster is not long for this world).
Thu December 21, 2017 8:30 pm
digster wrote:Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, and it what marked the difference between Obama and Clinton's tenures. There was a calcuation made early in Obama's term that the best way to acquire power again was to not work with him on anything, betting that the American people would take it out on the administration and Democrats. Unfortunately, the country had the worst possible response; it worked. Neither party has any impetus to change from the atmosphere that plagued much of the Obama administration (it's also why I think that no matter what McConnell says, the legislative filibuster is not long for this world).
Thu December 21, 2017 8:35 pm
4/5 wrote:digster wrote:Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, and it what marked the difference between Obama and Clinton's tenures. There was a calcuation made early in Obama's term that the best way to acquire power again was to not work with him on anything, betting that the American people would take it out on the administration and Democrats. Unfortunately, the country had the worst possible response; it worked. Neither party has any impetus to change from the atmosphere that plagued much of the Obama administration (it's also why I think that no matter what McConnell says, the legislative filibuster is not long for this world).
Pretty much this. I think Republicans in 2009 were terrified that the 2008 election might have signaled the start of a political realignment in favor of Democrats and (correctly as it turned out) decided that their best way to prevent that from happening would be to fully oppose everything that Obama wanted to do. Sometimes this was purely political, other times it was also ideological (like the gift Obama gave Republicans called the Affordable Care Act), but I think there was united, unrelenting opposition to him from day 1 in way that was unique in the modern era.
Thu December 21, 2017 9:01 pm
malice wrote:4/5 wrote:digster wrote:Green Habit wrote:I think Clinton suffered greatly on ideology, though. He signed a bunch of things (welfare reform, crime bill, AEDPA, PLRA) so that he could gain reelection and outmaneuver Team Newt. Obama didn't compromise in that fashion, and even if he wanted to, the GOP remembered their 1996 disaster and vowed to never give a Democratic president that kind of gift again.malice wrote:I can understand that, but Clinton came through all the opposition, and public humiliation without sacrificing much politically, imo. I don't know if Obama was as successful in that area.
I don't think either were saints i just wondered about how he compared against another prgressive that had to spend much of their time trying to work through the political downfalls, be they self created (as with clinton) or not.
I think there is a lot of truth to this, and it what marked the difference between Obama and Clinton's tenures. There was a calcuation made early in Obama's term that the best way to acquire power again was to not work with him on anything, betting that the American people would take it out on the administration and Democrats. Unfortunately, the country had the worst possible response; it worked. Neither party has any impetus to change from the atmosphere that plagued much of the Obama administration (it's also why I think that no matter what McConnell says, the legislative filibuster is not long for this world).
Pretty much this. I think Republicans in 2009 were terrified that the 2008 election might have signaled the start of a political realignment in favor of Democrats and (correctly as it turned out) decided that their best way to prevent that from happening would be to fully oppose everything that Obama wanted to do. Sometimes this was purely political, other times it was also ideological (like the gift Obama gave Republicans called the Affordable Care Act), but I think there was united, unrelenting opposition to him from day 1 in way that was unique in the modern era.
do you find this type of political strategy to be acceptable? I don't, but if you do, could you please explain why? I no longer feel any politicians have a desire to do "good" for the country, so im curious as to why and how that became standard behavior.... and openly encouraged