Where Clinton Turned Right, Obama Plowed Ahead

[ProSense]

Where Clinton Turned Right, Obama Plowed Ahead

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — When President Bill Clinton faced a Republican uprising and a nation that turned deeply skeptical about his agenda, he used the 1996 State of the Union address to declare that “the era of big government is over.”

That move to the middle — arguably more rhetoric than reality — stopped Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution in its tracks. So why did President Barack Obama go a different route on Wednesday night, giving little ground and declaring that the problem was not his agenda but a deficit of trust in government and of pragmatism? If there was a defining line in Mr. Obama’s speech, it might have been “Let’s try common sense,” to which he ad-libbed, “a novel concept.”

The difference may lie in very different times. Mr. Clinton had already lost Congress by the time he gave that speech. Mr. Obama’s message was that Democrats should not be so certain that they were about to suffer the same fate. He pointedly reminded them that while they may have lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, they have not lost control of either house of Congress — at least not yet.

<...>

In short, his message was that his agenda remains unchanged; only the timing is uncertain. That is the difference between the Clinton approach in 1996 and the Obama approach in 2010. Mr. Clinton clearly felt that he needed to get ahead of the political passions of the moment. Mr. Obama, rightly or wrongly, still is acting like he can control them.

[flyarm]

1. ...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :spray: :rofl:

[VMI Dem]

2. Heh.

That's funny.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

5. What are you trying to say: that Obama can't be FDR because he doesn't have 69 Democrats?

"The era of big government is over" led to the repeal of Glass Steagall.

[Cha]

6. "Shill"? Did that hit a nerve?

[Captain Hilts]

9. No, ignorance of history bothers me. I LOVED the speech last night

and am content with that.

But the Dem majority is the largest we've had in decades. The Prez said so himself.

So, let's hope he kicked some Dem ass along with the R ass!

Keep the Faith!

[ProSense]

10. "ignorance of history "? You simply don't want to face the facts of the story

Clinton turned right, Obama is pushing forward with his agenda.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, President Obama is doing a Fine job.

There will always be the terminally upset who have nothing better than to sit around all day taking cheap shots at the Presient while laughing their damn heads off.

[bigwillq]

22. And then there's Cha

who must follow every positive post with a jab at people that she doesn't agree with. Why are you wasting your time on them? Or do you not have nothing better to do than to sit around all day taking cheap shots? :shrug:

[Cha]

24. You don't know what the fuck I do but I see you followed me

in the Barack Obama Forum to scold me..in two threads.

Better you should just mind your own fuckng business.

[bigwillq]

25. I hope you take your own advice (nt)

[Cha]

26. I sure as shit am not going to follow you around, buster.

[paulk]

36. that is what you do, though

one doesn't need to follow you around to see that -

you're the master of the 3rd person putdown, never having the courage, I guess, to trash another DUer face to face.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. No one has to follow you to see how you behave n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. That's an odd analysis

What really strikes me odd is the author's interest in this line:

"So why did President Barack Obama go a different route on Wednesday night, giving little ground and declaring that the problem was not his agenda but a deficit of trust in government and of pragmatism? If there was a defining line in Mr. Obama’s speech, it might have been “Let’s try common sense,” to which he ad-libbed, “a novel concept.”"

"Common sense" is well established American political code for centrist bullshit. Triangulation is all about "common sense"... there are two warring groups of lunatics and me in the middle with my home-spun common sense.

It's not like Clinton moved right by saying, "Hey, let's abandon common sense and adopt some Republican crap."

And, comically, "common sense" is responsible for the worst part of the speech. It is "common sense" that the government needs to tighten its belt in tough times. It is also complete crap because macro-economics is not a global extrapolation of kitchen table economics.

(It is "common sense" that since things shrink when they get colder that freezing water cannot burst pipes... but it does.)

I don't know what the author's interests are but this is pretty weird spin.

[ProSense]

8. "Triangulation is all about 'common sense'" Now that's odd and ridiculous

There is nothing "common sense" about triagulation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. As always, read harder

If you cannot even read sneer quotes in context...

[ProSense]

14. Are you saying that's not your quote? n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Again...

The sneer quotes around "common sense" indicate that the phrase is not being used to mean actual common sense, but rather political "common sense" which is, as I said, a code phrase for moronic centrist (or even nut right) rubbish.

You will find that nobody tosses around the phrase "common sense" like teabaggers... except maybe con-men.

[ProSense]

19. Oh please, trying to redefine the phrase to fit your spin makes no sense. n/t

[niceypoo]

34. Pssssssstt!

"Context"

[Armstead]

13. I agree with you on that. So why are we triangulating?

Saying that the financial system is fine, except for the bad behavior of some bankers is triangulation.

The problem is that we have allowed a systemic perversion of the financial system with policies that have given a handful of banks and investment houses the ability to wreck the economy in a week.

Ignoring that fact, and blaming it on the misbehavior of a few executives while leaving the system intact, is triangulation.

[ProSense]

15. That is not what triangulation means

"Saying that the financial system is fine, except for the bad behavior of some bankers is triangulation."

Obama is pushing Volcker's reforms, that is not triangulation.

Triangulation would be to water down legislation or resort to deregulation to appease the industry. That is not happening.

[Armstead]

17. Triangulation is ignoring core issues

Volkers reforms are a step in the right direction. But it is still within the context of avoiding the real problem, which is policies that have allowed a handful of banks and Wall St. firms to become far too big for their britches.

[ProSense]

23. Are you pretending to be ignorant?

"Volkers reforms are a step in the right direction. But it is still within the context of avoiding the real problem which is policies that have allowed a handful of banks and Wall St. firms to become far too big for their britches."

First triangulation wouldn't represent a step in the right direction. Second, Volcker's plan does, in the strongest sense, address "too big to fail."

Stiglitz: Obama bank proposals a big step forward

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's proposal to limit financial risk-taking at Wall Street banks is "a big step forward," Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Thursday, but derivatives regulation is still needed.

"As is always the case with regulation, the devil is in the details, but this is a big step forward from where things have been," Stiglitz said in an interview with Reuters Insider TV.

Obama's proposals, which require Congressional approval, address the problem of banks that are "too big to fail" and take excessive risks, Stiglitz said.

The rules would set a cap on banks' size in relation to the overall financial sector and prevent financial firms that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

The rules would also bar some banks from making bets on financial markets with their own money that are unrelated to serving their customers.

[Armstead]

27. Stiglitz basically says what I said

And I didn't say "triangulation is a step in the right direction." Just the opposite.


From the article you cut and pasted

"But he said the rules don't go far enough in regulating derivatives, which are based on underlying assets including bonds and commodities or can be tied to currency and interest rate moves.

Derivatives were blamed for exacerbating the credit crisis and contributed to a run on assets that helped topple banks, including Lehman Brothers.

Derivatives are a problem "not only with the very big banks but could lead to banks that are not only too big to fail but financial institutions that are too intertwined to fail, as is the case with the AIG episode last year," he said...."

[ProSense]

28. Now you're spinning.

You: "Volkers reforms are a step in the right direction. But it is still within the context of avoiding the real problem which is policies that have allowed a handful of banks and Wall St. firms to become far too big for their britches."


From the article: Obama's proposals, which require Congressional approval, address the problem of banks that are "too big to fail" and take excessive risks, Stiglitz said.


You mentioned nothing about derivatives, which is a separate issue from too big to fail.

[Armstead]

29. It's impossible to discuss anything with a brick wall

You are determined to never give an inch, gove someone you disagree with any benefit of the doubt or credit, or accept any conciliatory gestures.

There are people on here I can disagree with civilly and with mutual respect, and finds points of agreement. However, you are determined to cast everything in black-and-white terms, and with a narrow "my way or the highway" rigidity.

Not worth the effort.

[ProSense]

30. No, you're the one who spends all the time spinning everything as negative.

You've been in negative overdrive leading up to and since the SOTU. You get no inch from me.

[Armstead]

31. Hell I've been in negative overdrive ever since they started screwing up health care reform...

I don't even expect even fraction of a millimeter from you, as all you do is spin how wonderful and perfect Obama is.

P.S. I have also tried to present my own ideas of constructive alternatives. But those don't matter to you if they are at all critical of his wonderfulness.

[ProSense]

32. Well, don't expect everyone to buy the BS. n/t

[niceypoo]

35. Pssssssstt!

"The Emperor wears no clothes"

[Ildem09]

33. no triangulation as conceived by James Carvell and Paul Begala

Is staking out policy territory that is slightly to the left of the Republican party and more right than most of the Democratic Base. so for example on HCR the president can say X republican is being unreasonable and Y Democrats are being unreasonable. it comes off as being for against and beside every issue

[karynnj]

11. Not at all - "common sense'could be pragmatism or a non ideological approach,

but there is no way that it equates to "centrist bs". That you say it is suggests that you think people have bought that the centrist ideas are the most practical. (Note: clearly you do not believe that centrist ideas are the most practical.)

There is a big difference between triangulation that finds the spot in the middle and looking at the problem systematically, evaluating the options and selecting the option most likely to work.

[inna]

40. Exactly. Very well said.

:thumbsup:

[Oregone]

16. He doesn't need to turn to the right

We're all ready there

[burning rain]

20. Comparing this to Clinton's "The Era of Big Gov't Is Over" SOTU is disingenuous.

An apples-to-apples comparison would be to what happened after Democrats lost Lloyd Bentsen's Senate seat to Kay Bailey Hutchison in a June, 1993 special election, after Clinton appointed the former to Treasury. That election reduced the Democrats' Senate majority from 57-43 to 56-44. Such a comparison, however, would be less "spicy," because that loss of a single Senate seat didn't elicit any notable change of course from Clinton, unlike the 1994 bloodbath.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Kick.NT

[MBS]

37. YEAH. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

38. Will his actions follow his rhetoric? OR will it be like the first year?

That is the real question.

If he follows the path he started on, it's all just words.