Bill Clinton, Barack Obama: As MSM, GOP opposition grows, has anything changed?

[denem]

Rather than focussing on Clinton (bashing) and Obama's (retreats), how, if in anyway, has the opposition changed in their tactics? Yes I know the issues and times were very different ( DADT, NAFTA, the Budget 2003), but has anything really changed in the modus operandi to wound the President, often and early?

[Jennicut]

1. Nope.

Its really very similar except hopefully Obama can learn from Clinton's mistakes. Actually I think he is doing better then Bill did, he never even got his stimulus passed, just the budget that had a tie and had to be broken by then VP Gore.

[VeraAgnes]

2. So very true indeed.....

Yet, the Democrats let the *bush crime family get away with their constant, obnoxious, incestuous abuse on America. Revisit how many times of Democrats in Congress graveled....remember Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and the leasers who followed. We need a fresh crop of fighting Democrats in Congress.

The GOP is nothing but a united, self-serving collective of Borg. They will not work with anyone.

[rvablue]

5. And in addition to Obama learning from Clinton's mistakes,

we've also got KO, Rachel, DU, DKos, the Internet in general and Stewart and Colbert to help fight the smear from the RW noise machine.

None of these things/shows existed in 1993 and the MSM was allowed to be an echo chamber for the right, unchecked.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Congress - Sam Nunn in particular, then Colin Powell - got the ball rolling against Clinton. nt

[blm]

4. Clinton got the ball rolling when he deepsixed IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI for Poppy Bush

and his powerful cronies.

The targeting of Clinton on BULLSHIT matters helped obscure the REAL COVERUPS going on.

[Metric System]

7. Oh please. If Clinton went after the previous administration as soon as he entered office there

would have been an even bigger war between Rethugs and Dems. I don't see President Obama going on and on about the Bush administration in the present either. Why? Because he wants to get things done and revisiting the past will only ensure failure of his agenda. When Americans vote in a new administration they want a new beginning, they're not looking to rehash the problems of the previous administration. It may be unfortunate, but it's true.

[blm]

8. Baloney - those investigations were already heavily involved - Clinton didn't have to do anything

but cooperate with the access to documents that had been stonewalled by Bush1.

Your reasoning is HIGHLY FLAWED. The GOP and especially BushInc was at its most vulnerable in 1993 and further exposure of the crimes and treason involved in IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate would have resulted in Republican choruses of 'I wasn't part of this."

GOP wouldn't have GAINED more power from further exposing the treason of the previous administrations. Clinton delivered the power into their hands by protecting Poppy Bush, Jackson Stephens and the other powerful cronies involved. You really want to make the case that Clinton letting those BCCI thugs involved off the hook, including Bin Ladens, AQ Khan, Dubai and Saudi royals was a GOOD THING?

[Cha]

6. I'm thinking Obama knew this was

coming from the Wright, Ayers, Ect, Ect years.

I know nothing about the Clinton years but from the last 8 years I know the corporatemediawhores need to go.

[anonymous171]

9. We need to change our tactics. nt