Ha! On this literal statement, we agree. Have a nice night.
Here is a pretty perceptive reason as to why Bill Clinton has been on the attack and offense. And although he’s been put on a leash, he won’t stop…
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/15085136.html
"What gnaws at him (Clinton) is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama’s statement that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that … Bill Clinton did not.”
The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. And not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama’s assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.
Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance."
ZING!!
Obama’s statement that Reagan’s presidency had historic significance and Clinton’s did not incited Clinton, it hit a nerve. So he wants a second chance - through his wife’s presidence.
Consider this Clinton election all about Bill’s 2nd chance to establish a real legacy.
Yes, very perceptive article… I’ve got to agree - this is why clinton is playing his usual politics, this is the bill clinton the real republicans have recognized all along. yes, indeed.
Well, if you want a generous and even-handed view on Bill Clinton, as well as a nearly telepathic capacity to peer into the minds of others, its hard to beat ol’ Chuckie “Sour” Krauthammer. Fair and balanced, to coin a phrase.
And these “real Republicans”? Who have taken the measure of Horndog Bill with such clarity and precision…are these the same guys who assayed the character of GeeDub, and found him a splendid candidate for most powerful man in the world? This sort of thing inspire a lot of confidence in you?
yip, them would be the same “real republicans”. yip indeed.
and never mind deflecting from the real point here, or that it was Krauthammer who stated it… the issue is, he’s right.
how can you argue this:
"What gnaws at him (Clinton) is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama’s statement that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that … Bill Clinton did not.”
The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. And not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama’s assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.
Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance."
Care to give me a few specific actions of Reagan’s that accomplished these amazing feats? Because this sounds as if it was cut-and-pasted directly from the Heritage Foundation website. Either that, or Fox News.
Big deal -I got the significance of the percentage wrong. It’s still worth noting that the ads reached more people and that there is nothing ambiguous about its intention. It doesn’t matter if he tried excluding it, he could have moved the national ad campaign to a later date. No other campaign had it at the time - why is that such an insufferable imposition on him when everyone else was able to comply.
You’re the one with your finger in your ear shouting LALALALA. Your whole post consisted of: a nitpick, an accusation that I have different characterizations of Hillary’s and Obama’s photo-ops and an excuse which I already acknowledged but dismissed as still violative of the pledge and unfair inspite of the permission. Meh. In the end, we still have two candidates who had photo-ops/ press conference and only one with ads that reached a very big portion of Florida households. A lot of Obamafanatics agree with your assessment. Console yourself with that.
No, there is no end to the greasiness of the Clintons.
This is not the kind of slimy person I want running my government.
So much for Huckabee or McCain or Romney, then.
Cite that the pro-Clinton push poller is acting under her actual auspices, not as a free agent?
So you’re taking “evidence” from a blog posting and buying that the “push poller” is a Clinton agent? Indeed, the entire episode is “verified” to be affiliated with the Clinton campaign because a spokesperson was contacted but did not respond.
A little critical thinking would suggest that there are a number of possible explanations. (Assuming the source is trustworthy, that is.) It could be from the Clinton campaign. But it also could be a smear tactic from another campaign. If that happened to me, I’d check my called ID and find out who called. Seems a little more evidence is needed before floating this as “fact.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports Obama’s capitulation on a bill aimed to hold the nuclear power company Exelon accountable for nuclear leaks. Have a look. Oh, and it so happens that Exelon is a large contributor to Obama’s campaign. Not to mention that Obama’s campaign manager, Axelrod, has served as a consulted to Axelrod. Seems that there’s plenty of grease to spread around.
But back to the blog post. If that’s all it takes for you to attribute this to the “greasiness of the Clintons,” I’d say your bias is showing.
Belief in the Clintons’ immorality etc. has never required that credible evidence first be brought forward.
From the article (bolding mine)
So Obama started legislation to hold Exelon accountable but had to soften it before it could get past the Republican led committees? Should he have refused to change it one iota and let it immediately die on the vine instead? As is, it wound up dying anyway.
The reality of the situation was that the Republicans majority would have never allowed it to leave committee in its original form and Obama realized that a weakened bill was better than no bill at all. He was the originator of the bill when no one else was doing anything. I don’t see how that speaks poorly of Obama, innuendo about Exelon donations aside.
You know, you can’t have it both ways.
Either Obama is the second coming and ushering in a new wave of post-partisan politics, or he’s an ordinary, mortal, feet-of-clay politician. Furthermore, there’s this little issue:
So he re-writes a bill at the urging of the GOP and the nuclear industry, and the watered-down version doesn’t pass. And then he claims that it did!
I somehow doubt excuses would be made if the legislator in question was Hillary Clinton.
My point is not to sandbag Obama. I’m not surprised by this; I figure every junior senator deals with this kind of compromise. It’s part of politics. However, this contradicts two thrusts of the Obama campaign: one, he’s a principled fighter of special interests, and two, he possesses some kind of magical ability to pass legislation simply because he’s Obama, regardless of opposition. And there’s the stretching the truth bit as well.
Where’s the outcry for the end of the greasiness of Obama? Methinks if he stays in and around public office as long as the Clintons, Edwards, McCain, or anyone else, he’s going to have the same types of “greasiness…” In fact, he’s already on the path.
I’m sorry. Did I ever say Obama was the second coming? I was asking specifically about what’s so damning about needing to soften a bill to pass it through a Republican controlled committee, especially one controled by the nutcase that which is Inhofe. Or why I should even assume that Obama was on the take from Exelon because he had to soften the bill to pass it.
If your sole solid complaint is Obama’s comments, run with that. But you presented the article as some damning example of “capitulation” with an extra wink regarding Exelon’s donations.
Nothing, necessarily. But isn’t that the appeal of Obama? Above the fray of regular politics and so forth. And it’s a little disturbing that the company that he originally had in his crosshairs pushed him to make changes to the bill.
Hey, as long as you have that same assumption of innocence for everyone in public office in a similar position - publicly denouncing a company, but changing legislation to satisfy their concerns… and then taking tremendous amounts of money in the form of donations from them. This might not apply to you personally, Jophiel, but lots of Obama supporters don’t see the mote in their candidate’s eye and see plenty with Clinton.
That’s the entire point of the article. Obama has made green energy a big part of his campaign, but the ties he has to Exelon should be questioned. Furthermore, the promise of a new way of doing business in Washington is marred somewhat with a story of run-of-the-mill compromise with the Republicans as well as the influence of Exelon on the bill.
Obama’s campaign has crafted this image of a revolutionary political figure, when in fact his record suggests that the change he boldly promises is a little different from the reality, as Richard Wolfe and Karen Springen reported in Newsweek:
I’d like to address the notion that one of the Obama campaigns thrusts is a “magical ability to pass legislation simply because he’s Obama, regardless of opposition.” I think you misunderstand his message. He is constantly saying that this campaign is not about him, but about building a movement. His campaign is premised on being able to reach across racial, religious, and partisan divides to bring people into a movement for change. Part of that is his skill at inspiration, communication, and “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” But the larger part is not about him at all. It’s about an American people that genuinely want change–not just policy change, but process change–in a way not seen for decades.
There is nothing magical, or even unprecedented, in building a political movement to help pass legislation. Obama’s argument is that he can build a national coalition of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans who will support his policies. By working from the bottom up, he argues, a leader can change the dynamics of what kind of legislation is possible. It has happened dozens of times in our history, and it can happen again.
You may, and likely do, reject Obama’s capacity to build such a broad coalition-- such a movement. I have my own doubts. How could one not? But if that’s your problem with his campaign, you should make that argument. Tell us why he can’t build a new movement, or why such a movement can’t change what is politically possible. But don’t toss his campaign aside as mere magical thinking. You could have rejected every movement in American history with such a remark. Some of them do succeed. Why can’t this one?
The gatekeepers here were Inhofe and the Republican controlled committee. They were the ones who had to be appeased for the legislation to come out onto the floor, not Exelon. That Exelon and the committee shared the same goals isn’t exactly Obama’s doing.
I realize that was the point of the article. My point, however, is that the article completely failed to make a convincing case as far as this legislature was concerned. The fact is that the legislation was completely unpassable through the committee in its original form. If the Republicans on the committee had been willing to pass it in its original form, it would have passed through unchanged, Exelon’s concerns be damned. Do you disagree?
If you do disagree, how would you have expected it to pass or do you think Obama should have just dropped it? If you agree that it had to be modified in order to pass committee, then why the insinuations that it changed because of donations from Exelon? If anything, complain about the Republicans who held up the bill until it was soft enough for them.
For those interested, here’s Obama’s campaign response to the NYT article.