Well, you know, if you’re comparing how long I’ve been in public office, I’ve actually been in public office longer than her. I think that Senator Clinton is a capable and, and intelligent person. I think she’s been a fine senator from New York. But when it comes to the issues that are really moving the American people right now—healthcare, energy, how we deal with a shifting economy—those are all issues that I’ve been working with at every level of government.Can't we ever look straight at the question whether being First Lady counts for anything? Obama should attack her for relying on being First Lady as a credential and for suppressing the record of her time in the White House. And he should stir up doubts about the wisdom of returning a former President to the White House. Why even concede that she's been a "fine senator" or that she's "capable"? Point to some failures! This is your big chance. Obama is so bland.
Later:
MR. RUSSERT: A year ago, you were asked about Hillary Clinton. And this the exchange. “Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?” Obama: “You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence.” “She is—she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like healthcare and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.” Do you still hold to that? There aren’t any differences?He won't make even the gentlest criticism. Is he waiting for everyone else to do that or for her to fail on her own — a la Dean in '04 — and then to waltz into the opening John Kerry-style? Is he running for Vice President? Or is there no strategy at all, just a guy with no fight in him?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that I, as I said earlier, I have admiration for Senator Clinton. I think she’s a fine public servant. The reason I’m running is because I think we’re in a unique moment in American history right now. The nation’s at war; our planet is in peril. We’ve got a series of decisions that we’re going to have to make. And I believe that I can more effectively than any other candidate in this race bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments that we’ve been having since the 1990s. I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate that...
IN THE COMMENTS: "Hilarious! A faintly negative post about Obama and suddenly two comments lauding Obama from newcomers without profiles!" Simon notices something about the way blogging works.
ALSO IN THE COMMENTS: Zeb offers this answer to my last set of questions:
There's another choice. Is he afraid of her? is he afraid of really getting into it with her, of going into attack mode. Is he afraid of being crosswise with the Clinton machine? If you think about it, none of her Democrat opponents seriously attack and go after her. Maybe they're all afraid. They've all seen what the Clinton machine does to its enemies.UPDATE: Walter Shapiro in Salon:
The next morning, Obama appeared for a full-hour interview in another arena of political combat, facing off against Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." The fiery Obama of Saturday night had been replaced on Sunday morning by a replicant, a tepid candidate mostly concerned with avoiding mistakes rather than winning converts...
[I]f Obama really wants to be the one who knocks Hillary off her pedestal, he should remember that statues rarely topple without a hard push.
AND: You can watch Obama's Saturday night speech here.
Posts
62 comments:
He's tied for first place in Iowa and rising in New Hampshire. He doesn't want to mess up by going negative and driving away voters.
So he's coasting.
And is he tied? I'm seeing her up 6.4 in Iowa and 13.5 in NH (on the RCP averages).
He's [lost in music,] caught in a trap [no turnin' back...]. Having made so much of doing a different kind of politics, he rips himself a new one if he engages in the old kind of politics (you know, the kind that works).
The reference to the 90's was a subtle dig at Hillary and her baggage.
Perhaps those characteristics we need in a president are not those characteristics TV needs in a candidate. Could it be that he really is THAT decent? And are we jaded enough to forget that it's possible for anyone to be THAT decent?
I suppose decency doesn't preclude a little bit of fight and aggression, and the game is the game is the game, but it would be a pity for us to miss out on the guy who could be the great conciliator we need just because he indeed has the characteristics of a great conciliator -- quiet strength, a tendency toward the positive, etc.
"I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate that..."
Right now the extent of any of the democrats reaching out is to point out they are not Bush. Any Republican looking for judges ruling by the constitution rather than making laws, or looking for spending restrain (in fairness, not hearing much from Republicans on this), for tax relief, for private SS accounts, for limited government, school vouchers or any other of the (former) principles of the Republican party are not going to find a Democrat to vote for.
He's running for Vice President, and here is Hillary choosing him.
Louis said...
"[Obama] has the characteristics of a great conciliator -- quiet strength, a tendency toward the positive, etc."
A minimum qualification for a "great conciliator" would be understanding the legitimate concerns of the side to which he does not belong and an interest in accomodating them - which Obama has shown not the slightest indication of. "Quiet strength" - whatever that is supposed to mean - is no substitute. His idea of moving past the culture wars is for those on the side to which he does not belong sitting down and shutting up. That isn't reconciliation, it's a demand for surrender wrapped in cotton woold, and he demonstrates either dishonesty or incomprehension by not grasping that.
I actually like this, a lot. Everyone says they hate all the negativity in politics, but then you go and accuse Barack of not being negative enough? Sure, he needs to attack her, but he can do so on the issues, not on her personally. My opinion of Barack rose a bit after reading your piece here.
Hilarious! A faintly negative post about Obama and suddenly two comments lauding Obama from newcomers without profiles! Geez, Ann, anyone would think you mentioned Ron Paul...
Personally I wish they would run someone like Mike Coleman (mayor Columbus, Oh) I voted for him when I lived there. I would have gladly voted for him for governor or senator had he decided to run. Hell of a guy. Not a lot of sniping at the other side, just jumps in and gets the job done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_B._Coleman
Is he waiting for everyone else to do that or for her to fail on her own — a la Dean in '04 — and then to waltz into the opening John Kerry-style? Is he running for Vice President? Or is there no strategy at all, just a guy with no fight in him
There's another choice. Is he afraid of her? is he afraid of really getting into it with her, of going into attack mode. Is he afraid of being crosswise with the Clinton machine? If you think about it, none of her Democrat opponents seriously attack and go after her. Maybe they're all afraid. They've all seen what the Clinton machine does to its enemies.
Simon, to take another operatic meme, I think you're going to get the claque show up for whatever candidate you propose to slam.
They'll applaud, stomp, whistle, shout, all on cue.
And they'll drive up traffic.
It's so nice to see traditions upheld across the centuries.
Perhaps he's missing a point or emanation or two. Sen. Obama is technically my contemporary (he was born in early August 1961; I was born in early March of that year).
There's no way, either way, I can determine, know, or verify whether he had even the particular small experience I had of my mother reading, or having me read, articles from Life Magazine in the the '60s. Including the obvious one.
Whole bunches of ways to define and categorize experiences.
Whatever else can be said about Hillary Clinton, let's not forget that she didn't first enter the public stage as Bill Clinton's wife. Or that she did so before Sen. Obama (and I) had completed a decade of life on this earth.
Only sayin'.
Whatever anyone else can say about her, it's not like ...
Oh, never mind.
(And no, I'm not backtracking on my objection to dynasties. That stands.
Still.)
Quiet strength means quiet strength -- the kind of strength you don't have to rattle on about, strength evident from one's actions. It means not having to go for rhetorical read meat because you have faith that the differences between what you have said and done and what your opponent has said and done are stark enough.
Didn't someone say something about a big stick and talking softly? That's quiet strength.
As to the baby boomers and Obama's desire for us to, well, move on, and any resemblance that has to surrender. . . Gosh, wasn't it Bill Clinton, the boomer president, who surrendered so much? Isn't it his wife who. . . do I need to say it? Yes, I guess I do! Who voted for the war because she wanted to be president! That, my friend, is surrender.
And as for having never posted here until now, I read Ann's blog every once in a while, and have grown weary of her all-too-conventional attitude towards the Democratic primary -- crowning Hillary, paying such dear attention to the national polls, etc. -- so odd for someone upon whom I otherwise rely for a fresh thought or two. So I thought I would throw in my two cents -- I only wish I had the fundraising prowess of a Paulite.
tc-really. What the hell? You know absolutely no one reads that stuff, right? I mean, dude. I have nothing against crazy people, but come on.
tc, any thoughts about Lyndon LaRouche?
America's ready for a woman President!
Just not this woman.
Is there anyone out there planning to vote for Hillary that actually wants in his or her heart for America to "come together"?
Or are Hillary voters hoping for her win so that they can stick it to the other side?
I'm betting the latter.
Obama is not running for veep. Watch this speech he is definitely slamming Clinton. But he's not naming her, because I guess that's his thing.
I think Obama is smart enough to realize that Hillary's not going to pick him (or vice versa). Both will want the proverbial boring midwestern moderate white guy as veep (like Bayh or Vilsack).
Absolutely, Obama is not going to be Hillary's VP. A buddy of mine thinks that Sam Nunn is a likely VP.
Just listened to Obama's Jefferson Jackson speech, and I have to agree with Jacob that he's making pointed jabs at Clinton without naming her. It's not over the top -- maybe it doesn't have to be.
I say no way to determine, but that's not quite right. I have read Sen. Obama's books (I bought and read them). So I do have a superficial, second-hand sense of where he was.
That doesn't mean he has a sense of where other people against whom he's running were. Manifestly, based on some of his rhetoric anyway, he's at least not acknowledging where other people were, when that's easily determined.
Obama wants to say he's not a boomer. Well, depending on how one defines that, that well could be true. It also well could be not true. The problem is that he is born within the precise five-ish-or so year period most hard to define in terms of the easy nomenclature which we've all come to know to love.
I think part of it is "functional." Functionally speaking, in my view, he's absolutely a tail-end boomer. He's certainly not a throw-back to even just a few-years previous boomer. And no way he is the whatever gen???? that we forgot to name but was the truncated piece of life's churning-on just prior to the Gen X'ers. (I think he'd like to claim to membership as 1) a Gen X-er [snicker[] or 2) Gen????, if he can define it. Above all, he wants to disavow the boomer thing, most especially the back-ass of it, I think. I can understand that wishin'. Heh. Gettin's something else, however.)
What do you all think?
Just to add some of those jabs:
“That’s why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won’t do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do
…
When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq or that that gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. Or that I support Bush/Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like. And he will not be able to say that I waivered on something as fundamental as whether it is okay for America to torture because it is never okay.”
Why's he not going all out and explicitly naming her and making some of the criticisms Althouse noted? He’s also boxed himself in with his audacity of hope rhetoric, he’d open himself up to flip-floping to use what the Democratic base would see as Republican talking points. Hence the more subtle from the left attacks. Look at that second paragraph: He's calling Hillary Clinton out on 4 separate actions she took (Not that I’m saying I think she made the wrong call, for example ‘giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran’ means voting to call the Qods Force a terrorist group).
Also he doesn’t want to replay the 2004 primaries. He doesn’t want to be Gephardt to Hillary’s Dean (Gephardt went nuclear on Dean and took both of them out letting Kerry [here Edwards] slip through and win Iowa). He wants to keep the attacks subtle and hope that Edwards will be the one to go nuclear. In effect, he and Edwards are playing Chicken. The one who swerves (attacks Hillary) takes a hit. But if neither swerves Hillary probably wins.
[Transcript partially from TheGarance]
I have to disagree with the last three comments. It seems to me that Obama is angling for VP right now. Or at least playing it safe--waiting to see if something comes along to derail Hillary (either by her own actions or maybe by another candidate) while playing nice so he can land on the ticket if nothing does come along.
A spot as VP would set him up nicely to take over when Hillary leaves office. He can show his face everywhere, talk nice, and claim experience when '16 comes around. And he can keep his image clean.
Sorry--got derailed by real life, so there was a too-long gap between observations.
My comment just previous at 12:22 carried on from the 11:17 one; specifically:
I say no way to determine, but that's not quite right
dripped from:
"...There's no way, either way, I can determine..."
"Barrack" with two R's in honor of Veterans Day?
Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...
He's running for Vice President
That were my reaction! Like I think Huckabee is now running for vice president.
"Vilsack" now helplessly makes me think of Hitch's wax job.
Try not to forget the 900 FBI files in the Clinton White House. Is Obama's one of them?
If the Clinton's don't have buckets of dirt on Obama I would be amazed. The only way to go against the Clintons is to be perfectly clean, and even that doesn't always work. Look at poor Ken Starr.
And it's not like Obama could come up in Chicago politics and be perfectly clean.
I don't think he is running for VP, because Hillary would never choose him. She needs a Southern state that he can't deliver as a VP. And, I spoke to one of her close advisors and major fundraisers -- no, seriously, ask me about it at the next meetup -- and he said Richardson is a possible, but Obama is a no-no.
Nor do I think he is coasting. He is seriously running for President. Not going uber-negative is a real strategy in Iowa. Especially if Edwards is going uber-negative on the Hill.
I think people criticize Obama too much. People criticize his take on Social Security. But if he's in the general against a Republican who says we can never raise taxes (nevermind Reagan raised the payroll tax to save Social Security) and who wants to privatize Social Security, his fix looks reaaaaally good to Boomers.
Hillary up 6 in Iowa? I doubt it. Anyway, the margin of error in any poll probably swallows that, not to mention the undecideds are likely larger than the gap and the Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson voters will likely have to flip over to Obama, Edwards, or Hillary in the caucus system.
Nor do I think he is coasting. He is seriously running for President. Not going uber-negative is a real strategy in Iowa. Especially if Edwards is going uber-negative on the Hill.
I guess this is as good an explanation as any for why Obama's campaign has been such a boring disappointment. Democratic politics in Iowa is played with Nerf bats.
But an Obama win in Iowa would spark up the race, and give him a reason to be more aggressive.
I think most voters won't vote for a candidate who isn't willing to fight for the job in the way every other candidate fights for it. It's a contact sport. Nobody doubts Hillary is fighting for it, regardless of what she says. Obama seems as if he's conceding. So, for his sake, I hope you're right and Obama's just playing rope-a-dope.
And it's not like Obama could come up in Chicago politics and be perfectly clean.
Actually you can come up in Chicago politics and be squeaky clean. Look at Abner Mikva, who started in the Illinois legislature, then was Congressman from the same district as Justice Stevens, and later was a judge on the DC COA. Or look at Sidney R. Yates, Congressman from 1949 to 1999, except for when he ran for Senator against "a million here, a million there" Dirksen.
Maybe Obama is really decent and means what he says. How refreshing!
Maybe he wants to preserve his options for 2012 and 2016 and beyond and doesn't want to burn any bridges.
Maybe he thinks that Hillary will lose in 2008 because of (a) not so good memories of Bill, (b) something plastic about her personality that voters don't like in a presidential candidate, (c) Giuliani putting lots of blue states in play because he can win back voters turned off by the GOP's gay-bashing and fundamentalist religion, and (d) the likelihood that Iraq will not be much of an issue (Hillary has already said that there will be US troops in Iraq at the end of her first term.) and Democrats in Congress will undercut their presidential nominee with proposals for appeasement abroad and raising taxes at home.
Duncan: "And as for having never posted here until now, I read Ann's blog every once in a while, and have grown weary of her all-too-conventional attitude towards the Democratic primary -- crowning Hillary, paying such dear attention to the national polls, etc. -- so odd for someone upon whom I otherwise rely for a fresh thought or two."
Oh, get out! You're not a regular reader talking about what you've gotten from reading here in the past. You're just making that up. It's obvious for any number of reasons. One step up from the spambot's "Hey, cool blog. I learned a lot reading it..."
Thanks to Simon for the head's up about the new commenters with no profiles.
And all that "quiet strength" and "talk softly and carry a big stick"... Well, yeah I see the quiet/softly part, but how do I know there strength/big stick? People keep saying how nice and decent he is, but we're electing a President. We need more.
I think that retired Gen. Wesley Clark will be Hillary's VP choice for obvious reasons.
Obama's plan to invade Pakistan wasn't exactly an axample of talking softly, was it? No doubt he'll ask the UN for permission to carry a big stick when the time is right.
none of her Democrat opponents seriously attack and go after her. Maybe they're all afraid. They've all seen what the Clinton machine does to its enemies.
I think that's why Reagan didn't often attack his Republican opponents. He was afraid of them.
So are we saying if our candidates are demure -- and pretty enough -- the head quarterback will take them to the prom, er be VP? So our girls primp while Hil picks out corsages. But worry not, she'll respect them in the morning. She has indeed learned a lot from Bill...
Being First Lady only seems to be an asset for Hillary in the minds of the media. I recall a certain women's liberal arts college "up east" that had something to do with Barbara Bush denying the then First Lady the privilege of speaking at a commencement because, as the little snippets (God rest your soul, Lewis Grizzard) put it, Mrs. Bush's only claim to fame was that she was married to the President. Barbara would have been a great President.
Yeah, well being First Lady IS a bigger qualification than Sen. Obama has for the office. I can't stand the sight of Sen. Clinton, but she's got it all over B. Hussein Obama in the qualifications department.
HRC's record as First Lady is a record of failure. Two negatives stand out for me: First, HRC's arrogance (refusal to listen to people, refusal to anticipate objections and prepare responses) set back universal health care twenty years. Second, HRC's inability to persuade even her husband. By working to end welfare, Bill ignored her "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" message. This throwing of welfare mothers under the bus resulted in such bizarre horrors as the Flint six-year-old, father in jail, whose mother now had to get up at 4 am to catch a bus for her far away mall store job. At her wits' end about how to get her son to school, mom placed her son with her brother, the crack dealer. The first grader took one of his uncle's guns to school, and killed a girl in his class. When the best the village can offer is a bed at the crack dealer's, the village has failed its children.
Because clearly, it is society's fault this woman gave her child over to her brother, a crack dealer.
I sure hope the Barack doesn't run as Hillary's vice president. I can see where she would be screaming at him for an hour about not downloading Cheney's old emails fast enough and then offering to buy him lunch. Then he would beat her to death with a Yoga stick and then where would we be?
former law student said...
"[Hillary] set back universal health care twenty years...."
With that kind of record, maybe we should give her a second glance.
Right now, the media is giving Hillary a big pass on her credentials, verifying what her past accomplishments were. We are told that she was brilliant, among the top lawyers of her generation, in many ways ran the White House as Co-President - not a Tammy Wynette 1st Lady.
The media did the same with AlGore, the genius of sweeping vision and accomplishment...who various Dem supporters told the public that they worried that Al was possibly too smart for regular people to comprehend.
Then we found out Algore was more marginalized at the WH than the media realized from actual policy-setting. He was given grand projects and commissions to head - but little Clinton backing..the 95-0 rejection of Gore's Kyoto Treaty a textbook example. And we find out he was an average student ushered into Harvard on his Dad's name, who was in the bottom 5th of 3 years of his classes, failed out of Divinity School and never finished law school...and...had lower grades than Dubya...
We know some things about her time after Yale..she didn't clerk, but got a masters in child education and law. She set herself up for some fastrack public service jobs in DC with an eye to spend part of her time in Arkansas teaching with Bill - who had a "trailing spouse" offer at U of A Fayetteville.
Then she failed the DC Bar. So Arkansas was "gifted with her".
Then Bill got elected AG and Rose Law hired her as a "rainmaker" in 1977 to attract in business from all the power brokers she was wired into from Yale, DC, Boston. She did little to no courtwork or actual litigation. When Bill was elected Governor, Hillary was made full partner, in less than two years time.
In the years after that, she did little work as Starr's investigation of Rose Law showed, outside pro bono children's work - but she brought in the accounts of all the big Arkansas corporations, DC Fed business.
And after that everyone knows her claimed story...Certainly Obama's people do.
Obama just has to call her out and ask her to give an accounting of all her great feats and numerous Board activities she claimed - as well as her executive accomplishments as First Lady and demand the Clintons release those records.
He won't because he is Obambi the Wide-Eyed & Nice Fawn and justly concerned the Lizard Queen, if elected, could come down on him hard for 4-8 years.
Fortunately, John Edwards is showing the spine and scrotum Obambi lacks - he and his wife appear to be happily working to eviscerate Hillary!
It will be fun to watch. Will Obambi the meek getalong to get ahead forest creature join the trial lawyer shark couple...or will he be reduced to the pathetic, bumbling brown-nosing of VP Hopeful Richardson. ("Hey, I come across as a dunce, but a coveted Hispanic dunce! Make me VP, Hillary, and I'll be your Sancho Panza!")
What of Hillary's Presidential credentials did she gain on her own merit - and what was handed to her by Bill and other powerful patrons? What executive leadership and accomplishment has she done, and where is the documentation?
Is her "One of the 100 best lawyers" one of the smartest women in America all hype?
Supposedly, some academics that do rectal pluck IQ estimates of noted people and celebrities say Hillary! is a driven perfectionist and overachiever with an IQ of 140-143, same as Nixon, but well under Bubba Bill's or Mitt Romney.
Fuck, for that matter, below Sharon Stone, Madonna, Hedy Lamarr, Arnolds, Cindy Crawfords, a couple of Russian porn stars, and Mira Sorvino, and maybe Natalie Portman's. All, except perhaps Portman, who have bigger chests - and all who have smaller butts - 50% smaller butts in some cases.
Hillary might be comparable to William Howard Taft in the end. IQ 140-143, same sized asses.
Pogo -- conservatives like you usually revere the stay-at-home mother. But the point of my post is HRC's complete lack of any leadership or persuasion skills -- even within her own family.
But, to answer your question, ever since LBJ's war on poverty, society had set an expectation that single mothers would receive some level of support so that they could raise their children. Bill cut it off, sending this woman to work without offering her any childcare. Society sat and watched as all basis for Flint's economic activity was eliminated. (You may recall that Michael Moore made two movies about Flint's devastation, including the evocative "Pets or Meat." Society had put her husband in jail, preventing him from earning a living for the family. So yes, I would say society was responsible for her placing her son with the crack dealer.
Obama's so bland? No doubt The Decider - who you support - would have been tremendously witty and insightful and crispy and crunchy in that situation.
Society had put her husband in jail,
Not that he committed any crime, of course. We just put him in jail because we didn't like him, I suppose.
And her brother deals crack. But I guess that's society's fault as well.
Stay at home moms?
What are those?
I thought the left outlawed all that years ago.
So tell me, FLS, where you stand on this. Should she work or stay at home? If so, why?
Cedarford said...
"Fortunately, John Edwards is showing the spine and scrotum Obambi lacks - he and his wife appear to be happily working to eviscerate Hillary!"
That's because he's already irrelevant, his career is over, and has nothing to lose, while Obambi might justly fear being put into the same position if Hillary wins.
"Hillary might be comparable to William Howard Taft in the end. IQ 140-143, same sized asses."
Oh please. Such claptrap.
Right now, the media is giving Hillary a big pass on her credentials
What about Rudy's non-existent foreign policy experience? A mayor of a really big city is still a mayor.
Pogo, the availability of good jobs at good wages for the uneducated attracted people to Michigan from all over the world. Blacks like the ancestors of the six-year-old killer came to Flint -- the birthplace of GM -- to work at Buick, etc. Then GM shut the factories down. The ensuing poverty created the demand for drugs, and the lucrative nature of drug-dealing created the supply. But I guess you have no mercy for the casualties of our free enterprise system. Maybe the parents of the killer can go to Mississippi and get back their old jobs as sharecroppers.
Now "Vote for Hillary Online" is a legitimate example of a Clinton sycophant.
The blog is pretty funny, denying that anyone cares about stuff like planting questions at events.
What about Rudy's non-existent foreign policy experience?
Puh-lease. NYC is the most cosmopolitan city on the planet. Remember Moscow on the Hudson? Do any Americans still live in NYC?
Management skills are needed to run the country, and HRC hasn't run anything larger than the White House Travel Office.
FLS -
Ah so it doesn't matter whether it's municipal government or federal government, the only distinction that matters is whether the position carried absolute authority!
Sure, Hillary was IN the Senate, but she didn't RUN the Senate with an iron fist.
Giuliani, meanwhile, has lots of experience expanding his reach beyond even the loose strictures of the NYC mayor's office. So violating the US Constitution should be a walk in the park, given all the lead blocking W. did.
The Senate is a debating society -- a wonderful place for a Yale Law grad to affect the course of history.
Then GM shut the factories down.
And the only answer to job loss is crime? Is that your answer?
During the recession in 1981, I couldn't find a job in my hometown, so I hitch-hiked across two states until I found one. Never had to rob a single bank nor sold any dope.
The ensuing poverty created the demand for drugs
Interesting claim. Does poverty cause drug use? All of it, or just some of it? Do only poor people use drugs? How come I never used drugs when I was that poor (I mean food stamp poor)?
Plus, the movie Roger and Me came out in 1989, well before the Clinton welfare changes. That means the older limitless welfare was then operative. But that doesn't fit your argument that this woman left her kid in the hands of a crack-dealing brother while her husband was doing time, because of the loss of welfare money.
Why, you're just full of lame excuses today.
Doyle said...
"Now 'Vote for Hillary Online' is a legitimate example of a Clinton sycophant."
I had assumed it was satire.
Doyle said...
"A mayor of a really big city is still a mayor."
Quite so, but a mayor of a really big city still has more relevant experience to the Presidency than does a Senator. It's a shame in a way, because the ideal situation - for a number of reasons - would be if the norm was for mayors and governors to seek and obtain seats in the U.S. Senate, creating a farm team of well-credentialed possible candidates for President. I think that'd be very healthy for the nation for a number of reasons.
former law student said...
"The Senate is a debating society...."
If so, it's the world's worst debating society, as one can readily ascertain by watching how it actually conducts business - an unfortunate byproduct of CSPAN, I suspect.
Pogo, I don't have the time to prepare you a timeline of American industrial history, but I'll try to hit the highlights:
During the industrial boom, Negroes left the segregated South for plentiful, well-paid jobs for the unskilled in the North. A variety of strategic mistakes made by upper management of the Big Three resulted in plummeting sales, layoffs, and plant shutdowns. Things were bad at the time of Roger and Me and never got any better. Even non-automotive industries in Michigan were hurt: for example, pharmaceutical companies Parke-Davis and Upjohn merged with other companies, which shut down their Michigan facilities. Things went from bad to worse, to even worse: WJC pushed Nafta, which made even more factory jobs leave the U.S., and then he ended welfare.
During the recession in 1981, I couldn't find a job in my hometown, so I hitch-hiked across two states until I found one.
I got a nice raise and a promotion in 1981, so I can't relate. What kind of unskilled/semiskilled laborer were you? Normally when an industry faces hard times, every company starts laying off, or at least freezes hiring.
How come I never used drugs when I was that poor (I mean food stamp poor)?
Because you had hope that your life would be better. People turn to dope when they run out of hope.
Things went from bad to worse, to even worse: WJC pushed Nafta, which made even more factory jobs leave the U.S., and then he ended welfare.
Since NAFTA was ratified, the real incomes (i.e., adjusted for inflation and cost of living) of every American income quintile have risen. The bottom income quintile rose the most, in percentage terms. So no, things didn't go "from bad to worse". They went from bad to better.
What about Rudy's non-existent foreign policy experience?
If you want to get technical about it, NOBODY but the President has "foreign policy experience". The President sets American foreign policy. Everyone else is just following (or disobeying) his orders.
"suppressing the record"??
you're dumb as a doorknob.
revenant: according to the commies at the american friends service committee:
The trade surplus (exports exceed imports) with Mexico before NAFTA has turned into a massive trade deficit (imports exceed exports), which has eliminated 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. [1] Most displaced workers find jobs in other sectors, such as in the service industry, where wages are much lower.
Because the U.S. tends to import goods produced by lower-skilled workers, increased openness to trade has forced employers to compete by reducing the wages of lower-skilled workers relative to other workers in the U.S. [2]
U.S. workers feel more insecure about their economic future as both wages and union activity are increasingly constrained by threats from employers to move overseas. [3]
Do you have any quotes from your girlfriend, Rosie Senario?
Post a Comment