There is no double standard, right?

[ProSense]

David Sirota writes a piece criticizing Melissa Harrs-Perry.

By seeing this record and then explaining away declining liberal support for President Obama as a product of bigotry, Harris-Perry exhibits the ultimate form of both denialism and elitism.

Really? Who is in "denial"?

From Sirota's piece.

Taken together, we see that Obama -- as opposed to Clinton, who at least paid (often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism -- has proudly and publicly stomped on the very progressive promises that got him elected.

Got that: Clinton's empty rhetoric was special and deserving of some praise, but Obama, who has achieved much of what he promised, is different and deserves to be roundly criticized, even rejected, because he didn't pay "(often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism."

He worked in the Clinton WH, and is doing the same BS that Perry points out, introducing an excuse for Clinton.

Perry's point isn't that people weren't critical of Clinton at the time, it's that some of Obama's current critics are all too willing to excuse away Clinton's actions, including his policy failures, while harshly criticizing Obama, who has in many cases reversed or moved away from some of those policies.

No matter how many people try to hi-five and ignore it, the fact is that it exists. There are examples of it all over the Internet and in the MSM from people pining away for Clinton and begging Hillary to run, and I'm not talking about Dick Cheney. Many of these are critics who attacks Obama for not being progressive. They attack him from the left. They use Clinton's economy to criticize Obama.

Case in point, this 2011 article by Robert Kuttner: Black and Bleak

What a terrible irony this Labor Day that under America's first African-American president, black unemployment has risen to its highest level since the early Reagan years, and decades of black progress on homeownership have been wiped out.

<...>

A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats, but African-Americans made great economic progress in the late 1990s, when overall unemployment was low. In those years, the black-white wage gap and unemployment gap narrowed. Full employment and tight labor markets are always good medicine.

Bill Clinton was facetiously said to be the first black president, not just because of his comfort level with the black community and his appointment of African Americans to senior positions, but because of this very real material progress -- now largely reversed.

<...>

The problem is less Obama's failure to target black unemployment per se than his weakness on the jobs issue generally. Race comes into the equation because of an almost pathological aversion to conflict on Obama's part, which has been widely attributed to his wish to bridge racial and ideological gaps.

<...>

The President's race has nothing to do with African American unemployment. Kuttner credits Clinton for "very real material progress" for African Americans, and blames Obama for a situation that is a direct result of Clinton's deregulation policies.

Now let me quote Clinton on the economy, from this piece:

<...>

Voters may not care, but it’s worth pointing out the truth from time to time anyway. As Bill Clinton explained on “Meet the Press” last weekend, “First of all, he became president just a few months after the financial crash. Now, keep in mind, even before the financial crash, in the eight years before the financial crash, we had almost no new jobs. Only 10% as many as we had when I was president. Real family income was lower than it was the day I left office. The economy was weak as could be. Then you had this financial crash. Historically these things take five years to get over…. The American people are not used to waiting five years for anything good to happen, but that’s what we’re facing. And if you want to speed it up, we got to do things in the government.”

High expectations are one thing, but a double standard is quite a different thing. Sometimes it's deliberate, but not always. Still, it exists.

Even this from Walsh's piece merits attention:

The difference between Clinton's booming economy and today's broken one creates political problems for Obama in another way: He was largely elected due to Americans' fears that we were headed into an abyss, and their faith that he would bring the economic change he promised. Like a pilot taking over with a plane in a nose dive, Obama kept the economy from crashing, but he hasn't lifted it into smooth skies. Maybe it makes me an unrealistic and entitled white progressive -- that's pretty much what black author Ishmael Reed called Obama's white critics -- but I think it's clear that even with a recalcitrant Congress, the president could have done more than he did to dismantle the rigged system that let Wall Street destroy the economy, as well as more to help its casualties.

<...>

Walsh's piece is an attempt to rebut Perry's commentary of a double standard. Here, she's basically saying that Obama should have accomplished more with a Congressional majority similar to Clinton's, who failed to accomplish much in his first two years.

Filibusters

111th Congess (2009-2010) - 136

103rd Congress (1993-1994) - 80

The polls

President Obama's support is now above 50 percent among all but whites, whose approval is more than 20 percent lower than the other groups.

Gallup, Sept 12 - 18: Obama's approval climbs 6 percent among Hispanics (previous week)

Male: 36% (41%)

Female: 43% (45%)

White: 31% (35%)

Nonwhite: 65% (63%)

Black: 82% (86%)

Hispanic 53% (47%)

November 2009: Obama's Approval Slide Finds Whites Down to 39%

<...>

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

<...>

That average is more than 20 points higher than Obama's current approval among that group.

To Perry's point:

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration. In terms of criminal justice, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased judicial disparities in punishment; by contrast, federal incarceration grew exponentially under Clinton. Many argue that Obama is an ineffective leader, but the legislative record for his first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years. Both men came into power with a Democratically controlled Congress, but both saw a sharp decline in their ability to pass their own legislative agendas once GOP majorities took over one or both chambers.

Again, Perry's point isn't that people weren't critical of Clinton at the time, it's that some of Obama's current critics are all too willing to excuse away Clinton's actions, including his policy failures, while harshly criticizing Obama, who has in many cases reversed or moved away from some of those policies.

[young but wise]

1. K&R.

[ProSense]

2. No other comments? n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Wait for the self-inflicted victimhood in 5...4...3...2...1....

K&R!!!

[SidDithers]

3. K&R...nt

Sid

[Cigar11]

4. We’re taking Apples and Oranges

First of all let me start off by saying I like President Clinton and that History will show that he was one of our Greatest Presidents.

But when Conservatives and Liberals alike start down the make-believe road of comparing the Clinton and Obama Presidency, I immediately blow up their argument with a little reality sandwich!

If President Obama ever came close to a Sex Scandal like President Clinton … the ever loving self-righteous moral experts would leap off every Mountain Top or blow their brains out with outrage.

So when it comes to comparisons … trust me … there is none.

[ProSense]

5. Interesting

We’re taking Apples and Oranges

First of all let me start off by saying I like President Clinton and that History will show that he was one of our Greatest Presidents.

But when Conservatives and Liberals alike start down the make-believe road of comparing the Clinton and Obama Presidency, I immediately blow up their argument with a little reality sandwich!

...but what does this mean? Yes, its apples and oranges, but that doesn't explain or address the double standard.

[Cigar11]

6. The problem is,

there’s an assumption that there’s a Standard. Without a true baseline, there can be no Standards. The fact is, you will find few, if any Conservatives who will ever give President Obama credit … ever. Liberals who have an Axe to Grind will try to us Statistics to back their argument. Once again, we’re still talking Apples and Oranges. President Obama will have to go it alone without the Democratic Majority he’s earned, deserves and traditionally gets with a Democratic President. Hopefully … a Democrat Presidency loss won’t be too late to open Political Eyes and Liberal Views.

[ProSense]

7. Wait

"The problem is, there’s an assumption that there’s a Standard. Without a true baseline, there can be no Standards. The fact is, you will find few, if any Conservatives who will ever give President Obama credit … ever. Liberals who have an Axe to Grind will try to us Statistics to back their argument. Once again, we’re still talking Apples and Oranges. President Obama will have to go it alone without the Democratic Majority he’s earned, deserves and traditionally gets with a Democratic President. Hopefully … a Democrat Presidency loss won’t be too late to open Political Eyes and Liberal Views."

What does that even mean? It didn't answer my question. You say, the "problem is, there’s an assumption that there’s a Standard." Is this supposed to rebut the point made in the OP? It's not an "assumption."

And what does the highlighted point have to do with the OP, which is not about people using statistics to back up their argument, but simply employing a double standard.

[Cigar11]

11. I’m just trying to point out

(in my opinion of course) that we’re not dealing with rational thinking and thus all logical comparisons are irrelevant to rational conclusions when attempting to compare the Clinton and Obama Presidency.

Think of this way; Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House during Clinton Presidency. Try that for a comparison for starters. Clinton biggest problem, outside of his Sexual urges was policy conflicts with Political Foes … that’s normal. But President Obama spent two years dealing with crap like … “Where’s his Birth Certificate”!

I’m not trying to be combative towards your post; I’m just trying to say I can’t truly comprehend a rational comparison between the two when rational hasn’t been any part of this Presidency.

[ProSense]

27. That's OK

I’m just trying to point out (in my opinion of course) that we’re not dealing with rational thinking and thus all logical comparisons are irrelevant to rational conclusions when attempting to compare the Clinton and Obama Presidency.

Think of this way; Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House during Clinton Presidency. Try that for a comparison for starters. Clinton biggest problem, outside of his Sexual urges was policy conflicts with Political Foes … that’s normal. But President Obama spent two years dealing with crap like … “Where’s his Birth Certificate”!

I’m not trying to be combative towards your post; I’m just trying to say I can’t truly comprehend a rational comparison between the two when rational hasn’t been any part of this Presidency.

Your point is extremely clear.

[Mr Deltoid]

34. oops

Wrong spot

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. It is not a double standard, because they are two very different people

being treated in very different ways.

People supported Clinton before understanding what the long term implications of free trade agreements would be, and credited him and those agreements for the booming economy of the late 90s. Only later did we understand that NAFTA was a poison pill, and the boom had far more to do with advanced in computer technology than anything Clinton did.

Along comes Obama, who KNOWS that NAFTA was behind a huge part of our economic woes (along with the collapse of the tech bubble, three wars, and the Bush tax cuts). He campaigns saying NAFTA should be renegotiated. He gets elected. And proceeds to go for MORE free trade agreements.

Where the fuck is the double standard there?

Liberals liked Clinton because he talked like a liberal and things went well - until they didn't, and he was revealed as a DLC stooge. Liberals liked Obama because he talked like a liberal, then turned on him because he continued with the same bullshit that caused liberals to turn against Clinton.

[ProSense]

10. Um

It is not a double standard, because they are two very different people being treated in very different ways.

People supported Clinton before understanding what the long term implications of free trade agreements would be, and credited him and those agreements for the booming economy of the late 90s. Only later did we understand that NAFTA was a poison pill, and the boom had far more to do with advanced in computer technology than anything Clinton did.

...what?

What the hell are you talking about? The point is about current comments, not stuff people said in the past. Current, as in now.

I said nothing about their past comments. Past as in the 1990s.

Here's what I said: "Perry's point isn't that people weren't critical of Clinton at the time, it's that some of Obama's current critics are all too willing to excuse away Clinton's actions, including his policy failures, while harshly criticizing Obama, who has in many cases reversed or moved away from some of those policies. "

Along comes Obama, who KNOWS that NAFTA was behind a huge part of our economic woes (along with the collapse of the tech bubble, three wars, and the Bush tax cuts). He campaigns saying NAFTA should be renegotiated. He gets elected. And proceeds to go for MORE free trade agreements.

Where the fuck is the double standard there?

Liberals liked Clinton because he talked like a liberal and things went well - until they didn't, and he was revealed as a DLC stooge. Liberals liked Obama because he talked like a liberal, then turned on him because he continued with the same bullshit that caused liberals to turn against Clinton.

Your entire response answers your question. It's a perfect example of obfuscation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. "double standard" requires comparison.

If you're not comparing attitudes today with "stuff people said in the past" then what the hell ARE you talking about?

[ProSense]

19. Well

"If you're not comparing attitudes today with 'stuff people said in the past' then what the hell ARE you talking about?"

....clearly you don't understand what a double standard means.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Gibberish.

You don't want a discussion, you want a monologue.

[Cigar11]

16. I agree ...

Clinton sure didn’t have to waste 2 years of his Presidency convincing idiots he’s not from another Country or Planet.

[ProSense]

30. So

"I agree ... Clinton sure didn’t have to waste 2 years of his Presidency convincing idiots he’s not from another Country or Planet. "

...you agree that there isn't a double standard, but you believe the President, who accomplished a hell of a lot more than Clinton in his first two year, wasted that period of his Presidency "convincing idiots he’s not from another Country or Planet"?

On what planet is that reality?

[Hippo_Tron]

99. Job losses due to international trade didn't start with NAFTA

The process of "outsourcing" was a phenomenon of the 90's for sure. But imported goods had been putting American workers out of jobs since the 1970's. Doesn't really matter where the company is headquartered. If the labor is cheaper overseas, the jobs go overseas.

[uponit7771]

69. come on man, they're not talking about the ability of the admin to handle just stupid crap

[TheKentuckian]

9. If Clinton was "excused" then his wife would be President. Obama's nomination

was in many respects a repudiation of Bill Clinton.

Now the last line of defense seems to be that we let Clinton fuck us so Obama should get a pass and unflinching support when he fucks us too.
If liberals wanted more Turd Way shenanigans then the establishment pick would have won.

Hell, wait till you see the standards liberals will hold the next open primary. Clinton and Obama types need not apply. Nor need any apply that tries to be all to everyone or anyone with a hint of a bipartisanship fetish.

[ProSense]

12. Hmmmm?

If Clinton was "excused" then his wife would be President. Obama's nomination was in many respects a repudiation of Bill Clinton.

Now the last line of defense seems to be that we let Clinton fuck us so Obama should get a pass and unflinching support when he fucks us too.
If liberals wanted more Turd Way shenanigans then the establishment pick would have won.

Another attempt to distort the point of the OP.

It makes no such idiotic claim.

[TheKentuckian]

67. Then what is the point of the excusing Clinton point made?

What are you actually talking about then? Some silly effort to tie the Clintonites to the left? What is the point?

[ProSense]

68. Wait

"Then what is the point of the excusing Clinton point made? What are you actually talking about then? Some silly effort to tie the Clintonites to the left? What is the point?

...did Perry accuse Clinton of employing a double standard? No, the "silly effort" is your own doing.

[TheKentuckian]

85. Doing of what? Who said ANYTHING about Clinton employing a double standard?

If you would use your own words and thoughts and absorb those of others communication would be a hell of a lot better.

[ProSense]

86. Maybe

"If you would use your own words and thoughts and absorb those of others communication would be a hell of a lot better."

...you should take your own advice. You claimed that Obama's election was a "repudiation of Bill Clinton." If so, why would anyone use praise of Clinton to repudiate Obama?

The fact is this has nothing to do with the election results. It's fascinating that even in the face of three solid examples in the OP, people are still distorting the point and pretending that the double standard is imaginary.

[TheKentuckian]

91. I didn't praise Clinton and liberals in general do not either.

[TheKentuckian]

92. I didn't praise Clinton and liberals in general do not either.

[pmorlan1]

13. Racism it's not

Quite frankly I think that some people are using the charge of racism merely because they are frustrated that a lot of people who once supported Obama no longer support him because of his policies. They evidently just can't accept that some people are more interested in standing up for principle than they are in beating Republicans. It's not just about winning or losing when even when you win you lose.

If you would have told me that President Obama was going to support Bush policies on civil liberties I would have laughed in your face and yet not only has he continued those policies he's double downed on them. Instead of fighting for the people he's been fighting for the status quo. Bill Clinton was a huge disappointment. When people finally saw what his policies were doing (some still haven't admitted it) it wised them up to be wary of another Clinton style candidate. When we see triangulation we don't make excuses for it now because we know better. We no longer believe the BS that it's a "good political move" or it's "pragmatic" because it's neither.

[ProSense]

22. Well

Quite frankly I think that some people are using the charge of racism merely because they are frustrated that a lot of people who once supported Obama no longer support him because of his policies. They evidently just can't accept that some people are more interested in standing up for principle than they are in beating Republicans. It's not just about winning or losing when even when you win you lose.

If you would have told me that President Obama was going to support Bush policies on civil liberties I would have laughed in your face and yet not only has he continued those policies he's double downed on them. Instead of fighting for the people he's been fighting for the status quo. Bill Clinton was a huge disappointment. When people finally saw what his policies were doing (some still haven't admitted it) it wised them up to be wary of another Clinton style candidate. When we see triangulation we don't make excuses for it now because we know better. We no longer believe the BS that it's a "good political move" or it's "pragmatic" because it's neither.

...the President can do a hell of a lot more in this area, but he has not been "fighting for the status quo." The fact is that these are issues that are not going to be resolved overnight, and no one is saying the President cannot be criticized. At the same time, one has to acknowledge that there has been progress.

The ACLU praised the Obama administration for ending Bush's torture policies

President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

Still, what does this have to do with the point of the OP?

You say "racism it's not," but you state: "When people finally saw what his policies were doing (some still haven't admitted it)."

Maybe those who "still haven't admitted it" are the ones employing the double standard.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Point by point

a) Clinton's progressive policy wasn't simply a head fake. In 1993 alone, he signed the Brady Bill, raised taxes and signed FMLA.
b) Perry's point was about white liberals, not whites generally. Racism is a factor in politics today, but attitudes of liberals aren't a useful proxy.
c) The 136 filibusters were generally of bills that had already been watered-down to the point that progressives were not willing to go to the mat in their support. Wall street reform is a perfect example. Many conservative whites blame Obama for not getting tough with wall street. Even conservatives expect liberals to act like liberals.
d) Since Clinton gets blasted for NAFTA, WTO and "ending welfare as we know it" (but we often forget that the EITC came from that process), then why shouldn't Obama get blasted for sticking with it? Candidate Obama recognized how destructive NAFTA has been, yet he's done nothing about it.

Liberals, white and otherwise, have very good reasons to abandon Obama. I would argue they'd have been better advised to not support him to start with, but that's history.

[ProSense]

17. Hmmmm?

"Point by point"

a) Clinton's progressive policy wasn't simply a head fake. In 1993 alone, he signed the Brady Bill, raised taxes and signed FMLA.

Excuse that basically says, Clinton was more progressive!

b) Perry's point was about white liberals, not whites generally. Racism is a factor in politics today, but attitudes of liberals aren't a useful proxy.

No, Perry's point was about "white liberals" who employ a double standard, see point a.

c) The 136 filibusters were generally of bills that had already been watered-down to the point that progressives were not willing to go to the mat in their support. Wall street reform is a perfect example. Many conservative whites blame Obama for not getting tough with wall street. Even conservatives expect liberals to act like liberals.

So charaterizing Wall Street reform as "watered down" is supposed to mean that Clinton's deregulation is better than Obama ?

d) Since Clinton gets blasted for NAFTA, WTO and "ending welfare as we know it" (but we often forget that the EITC came from that process), then why shouldn't Obama get blasted for sticking with it? Candidate Obama recognized how destructive NAFTA has been, yet he's done nothing about it.

Excuse that basically says people critize Clinton too. Also, the claim that Obama has "done nothing about it" is false.

Liberals, white and otherwise, have very good reasons to abandon Obama. I would argue they'd have been better advised to not support him to start with, but that's history.

Summary, at least Clinton did something and Obama deserves to be abandoned.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. It's not a double standard to say that sugar is better than HFCS.

Clinton was more progressive and effective and we were all better off because of it.

Because of Obama's timid and pandering approach to governance and recovery we get to try austerity. This won't end well.

[ProSense]

23. OK

"Clinton was more progressive and effective and we were all better off because of it."

Was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Enron loophole more progressive than Wall Street reform?

Was DADT more progressive than repealing it?

Was DOMA more progressive?

Was calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare more progressive?

You make Perry's point perfectly.

[stevenleser]

32. Exactly. That poster strengthened the argument that we are dealing with racism. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. I dislike being called a racist.

Particularly when it is absolutely without basis.

I guess when you're a TV personality, the rules of civil conduct don't apply.

[stevenleser]

41. No, we just understand English better than most people and dont invent words or accusations

that are not there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. It isn't me who's inventing accusations.

This is your accusation that I'm a racist. Please back it up.

[stevenleser]

46. Please post a reference to any message where I specifically accused you of being a racist. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. How does my argument reinforce your belief that Obama is the victim of racism by white liberals?

[stevenleser]

49. Please post a reference to any message where I specifically accused you of being a racist. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. TV news messes with your head.

Hiding behind "some say" is institutionally approved cowardice.

You've said that my unflattering Obama/Clinton comparison is emblematic of the racism that Obama faces among white liberals.

There is no way to explain that statement in benign way.

[stevenleser]

59. Please post a reference to any message where I specifically accused you of being a racist. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. You strengthened the argument that we are infiltrated by administration-paid shills.

Some say.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Of course, many of us supported him in the end only because he was NOT

DLC Hillary.

There is a fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives - conservatives prefer the devil they know to the one they don't know; for progressives, the opposite is true.

That said, in the end MOST liberals will vote for Obama in 12 (giving time or money may be a different matter), because he is NOT a batshit republican. That doesn't mean we have to like it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. You don't speak for all liberals. Here's one who will work her ass off for Obama

Yes, giving time and money and all that I have.

...and I'm NOT the only liberal who will be working, either.

Speak for yourself!

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Sure you will. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Absolutely I will. And proud of it, too! nt

[stevenleser]

29. I think your post makes the case that it is racism.

All of a sudden President Clinton is/was a genuine progressive who should be applauded for being such? Really? That is what you are going with? And that is what is supposed to persuade us that the reason Obama is being pilloried is that nothing he has done is progressive and Clinton was the genuine progressive?

Right

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Comparatively, yes. Obama has done more to rehabilitate Clinton's rep than anyone else could.

Obama knows what he's doing. He's sticking with the worst deeds done by Reagan, Clinton and Bush, knowing what their effect is. Clinton signed NAFTA thinking that it might do some good. Bush started a couple of wars and created secret prisons thinking that it might do some good.

Obama has the advantage of knowing better. He knows that they did no good yet is sticking with it anyway.

[stevenleser]

39. Unless you are a member of the LGBT community or a supporter of their rights, OR if...

you are a young adult who now has healthcare because you can stay on your parents insurance.

Or...

LGBT rights are the big equality issue of the day. If you aren't more progressive on that, you aren't more progressive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Are you suggesting that Obama is a supporter of equality for GLBT people?

Clinton supported gays in the service before Obama was even elected to the Senate.

[stevenleser]

45. LOL. I cannot wait until LGBT DUers see this post of yours. n/t

[paulk]

66. it's true, though

surely a tv personality like you knows how DADT came about?

maybe you, with your superior understanding of the English language, might benefit from reading about it -

from wiki -

"After Bill Clinton won the presidency, Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but it encountered intense scrutiny by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy.<9>

The DADT policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.<17> At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,<18> it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)<19> that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.<17><20> The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.<21>

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.<20> The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,<22> issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.<20> This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". "

would it help if I made the italicized parts blue?

[Vattel]

80. Pointing out the truth to the Obama apologist will get you nowhere

[Prism]

83. The problem with Clinton and LGBT rights

While he at least tried for gays in the military (fairly radical in 1993 America), DOMA really was an abomination. I know there are some LGBTers who will disagree with me. Their argument is that DOMA temporarily staved off a constitutional amendment. I don't wholly agree there, but at least I understand the situational politics involved in the argument.

But what Clinton then did is launch campaign ads in 1996 and brag about DOMA in southern states. "I saved your family from them there queers!"

There is cynicism, and then there's that.

That pisses me off to absolutely no end. And then he turned around and advised Kerry in '04 to support another anti-gay amendment. Clinton wasn't merely throwing the LGBT community under a bus - he wanted to make sure we went under the whole god damned train.

Sure, now he's fine with gay marriage and all that. Way after the fact, when he has no power or say-so about it. But when he did wield power, when he was in a position to affect our lives, he got awfully shady awfully quick when it suited him.

[paulk]

87. well, I think he was really spooked by the reaction

when he tried to overturn the ban with the military. I've always felt that that and the failed hillarycare initiative are what cost the Democrats the '94 elections.

Still - I agree his actions around DOMA are hard to swallow. Perhaps he overreacted in his desire for Democratic victory. OTOH - who knows? Kerry lost the election. Maybe the country wasn't ready until now.

[ProSense]

50. Double

"Clinton supported gays in the service before Obama was even elected to the Senate."

...standard!

Perry, from the OP:

Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal.

Her point was spot on!

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Clinton asked for repeal in 2003.

DADT was an executive order to circumvent a law passed by congress prohibiting gays from serving.

We are all happy that gays can now openly serve. Progress comes in small steps.

[uponit7771]

70. Obama ASKED for a civil congress...what they "asked" for is irrelevant

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Clinton knew they were adversaries. Obama pretends they're not.

Get back to me about hostile congress when they hire Ken Starr.

[ProSense]

74. Wait

"Get back to me about hostile congress when they hire Ken Starr."

...what the hell did Congress have to do with hiring Ken Starr?

In August 1994, Kenneth Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by the Attorney General prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law. Fiske was replaced because he had been chosen and appointed by Janet Reno, Clinton's Attorney General, creating an apparent conflict of interest.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. around

The independent counsel worked for congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/595.html

In your honor, I've begun using prepositions for subjects.

[ProSense]

76. That

"The independent counsel worked for congress."

...is the independent counsel law. Congress, which was in Democratic control did not appoint Ken Starr.

He was appointed by a panel of judges.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Tree

The independent counsel was working essentially at the direction of congress.

[ProSense]

77. And another thing

that has nothing to do with the point of the OP, of which you are living proof!

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Three words? Bad form! Bad form indeed! n/t

[ProSense]

42. Hmmm?

Comparatively, yes. Obama has done more to rehabilitate Clinton's rep than anyone else could.

Obama knows what he's doing. He's sticking with the worst deeds done by Reagan, Clinton and Bush, knowing what their effect is. Clinton signed NAFTA thinking that it might do some good. Bush started a couple of wars and created secret prisons thinking that it might do some good.

Obama has the advantage of knowing better. He knows that they did no good yet is sticking with it anyway.

You keep making the false claim that he's doing nothing about trade agreements.

In fact, there are Democrats who staunchly opposed NAFTA, who are working with this President to strengthen the trade agreements.

Also, after claiming that Clinton is more progressive, you're now blaming Obama for your POV: "Obama has done more to rehabilitate Clinton's rep than anyone else could."

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. He (with the help of congressional democrats) IS to blame for my POV

He lowered the bar of what I consider the bare minimum I expect from Democratic elected officials.

[ProSense]

53. Well

He (with the help of congressional democrats) IS to blame for my POV He lowered the bar of what I consider the bare minimum I expect from Democratic elected officials.

...it was nice of you to throw Congressional Democrats into the mix, but I see you're determined to stick to the double standard.

Do you consider repealing Glass-Steagall, enacting the Enron loophole, DADT, DOMA, welfare refomr, and explicitly calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare raising the bar of what to expect from Democratic elected officials?

[Beacool]

31. The only thing I see with this constant harping and comparisons

is to further divide the party into Clinton supporters vs. Obama supporters. Keep up the divisive crap and see how many will feel like mobilizing next year. The country is going down the crapper and the eternal query as to "Where are you going to go? Are you going to vote Republican?" has ceased to have meaning.

Clinton had a booming economy. More people were lifted out of poverty (including AA) during his tenure than in the previous 40 years. Ask the average person on the street, most would give their eyetooth to go back to the economic stability of the 90s.

Trying to support Obama by constantly bashing the Clintons is not helping the Democrats' cause. It only serves to further piss off the Clinton supporters.

x(

[stevenleser]

33. It's a legitimate comparison to make given the criticism. Personally, I think both are/were great

and both operated about as well as possible given what was known at the time and what the opposition was at the time. The revisionist history by some to justify criticism of Obama would be funny if it wasnt so potentially catastrophic for the country.

[Beacool]

52. I beg to differ.

I disagree with the person that started the ball rolling by basically saying that white liberals are racist. That they supported Clinton's policies while bashing Obama. This premise is B.S. To this day many liberals despise Clinton. Read any post right here on this board about Bill and you'll see what I mean. Liberals supported Obama over Hillary in 2008. If they are now disappointed with Obama, it serves them right for believing his platitudes in the first place. But to state that their disappointment is due to Obama's race, and not the policies that he has adopted while in office, is utter nonsense.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

57. Well

"I beg to differ."

...you missed the point.

"To this day many liberals despise Clinton."

Of course, that is with the exception of those hypocritically praising Clinton to criticize Obama.

[ProSense]

35. Do

"Clinton had a booming economy. More people were lifted out of poverty (including AA) during his tenure than in the previous 40 years. Ask the average person on the street, most would give their eyetooth to go back to the economic stability of the 90s."

...you acknowledge his role (repealing Glass Steagall and enacting the Enron loophole) in creating the current crisis?

Do you agree with Clinton on the factors impacting the pace of economic recovery, from this piece:

<...>

Voters may not care, but it’s worth pointing out the truth from time to time anyway. As Bill Clinton explained on “Meet the Press” last weekend, “First of all, he became president just a few months after the financial crash. Now, keep in mind, even before the financial crash, in the eight years before the financial crash, we had almost no new jobs. Only 10% as many as we had when I was president. Real family income was lower than it was the day I left office. The economy was weak as could be. Then you had this financial crash. Historically these things take five years to get over…. The American people are not used to waiting five years for anything good to happen, but that’s what we’re facing. And if you want to speed it up, we got to do things in the government.”

President Obama is working to re-regulate the financial sector and do the things necessary to strengthen the economy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Oh, did I miss something? When did "Clinton supporters" stopped being "pissed off"?

:rofl:

[Beacool]

55. There are millions of Clinton supporters.

Many enthusiastically supported Obama after Hillary dropped out. They canvassed and raised money for the GE.

:shrug:

[Mr Deltoid]

37. Flogging a dead horse

Non issue

[ProSense]

38. Um

"Flogging a dead horse... Non issue"

...nice non-rebuttal! Lame cliche though!

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. "He worked in the Clinton WH"? That explains so much. I had no idea.

Sirota, Carville, Walsh, etc......It explains that horrific smell that's only grown stronger since the primaries ended, it's PUMA dookey. Mind where you step. :hi:

[LittleBlue]

61. Sirota must be a racist

Me too. I guess we're all so racist we don't realize that Obama is no worse than Clinton. What a campaign slogan.

From "hope and change" to "no less liberal than Clinton- vote for me you racists"

If Obama bungles this election he has only himself to blame. Luckily the right seems intent on trotting out the Three Stooges of Palin, Perry, and Romney. Actually I fear Romney. But oh well, carry on in turning off more voters. You're doing a fine job.

[ProSense]

62. Well,

"Sirota must be a racist Me too. I guess we're all so racist we don't realize that Obama is no worse than Clinton. What a campaign slogan."

...everyone is free to spin the point of the OP to dismiss it.

[LittleBlue]

63. Debate, write lengthy analyses all you want

But it won't convince anyone who realizes what Obama squandered in 2009.

I haven't been on here for a while and it appears that threads are a lot less active than they used to be after the election. No wonder. I came here and immediately saw how white liberals are applying a racist double-standard to Obama. Who wants to read that crap? :puke:

[ProSense]

65. Well

Debate, write lengthy analyses all you want But it won't convince anyone who realizes what Obama squandered in 2009.

I haven't been on here for a while and it appears that threads are a lot less active than they used to be after the election. No wonder. I came here and immediately saw how white liberals are applying a racist double-standard to Obama. Who wants to read that crap?

...you're free to ignore the thread. Still, what does your opinion about the Presidency up to this point have to do with the point of the OP?

When people crap all over the President achieving health care reform, and then turn around and praise Clinton with claims like "at least Clinton fought for his bill" then it isn't about whether or not the bill should have been killed because it wasn't single payer or didn't include a public option, it's about hypocrisy!

Unlike Clinton, the opportunity to pass health care reform wasn't "sqaundered."

[Mr Deltoid]

95. "I came here and immediately saw how white liberals are applying a racist double-standard to Obama"

What a load of absolute racist tripe

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamthebandfanman]

97. definitely is a turn off

being called a racist for simply disagreeing with someone.

thank god , as you said, that the GOP is showing their true colours this year... finally america is getting a glimpse at the core of their party... whackjobs. lol.


the notion that clinton was a huge progressive is laughable...

[redsoxrudy]

71. Yeah, you busted me

I worked my ass off to get Obama elected (including primary.) I guess now that I criticize his policies, I must have opened my eyes and finally realized he is black..... Idiotic post defending an idiotic article. I think Ms. Harris-Perry is one of the best liberal voices we have out there. She just REALLY jumped the shark on this one.

[ProSense]

73. Well

worked my ass off to get Obama elected (including primary.) I guess now that I criticize his policies, I must have opened my eyes and finally realized he is black..... Idiotic post defending an idiotic article. I think Ms. Harris-Perry is one of the best liberal voices we have out there. She just REALLY jumped the shark on this one.

..."idiotic" comment, missing the point completely.

[Number23]

81. What more is there to say about this?

It's out there. Those who know, know. As more than one black poster has noted, the over reaction to MHP's piece truly says it all.

I've now noticed that others are jumping into this conversation (on the sidelines of course) and now trying to make it about something else. This has gone well past circus time.

Like I said, the reaction to MHP's has proved her point more than any post from you or anyone else (no matter how factual) ever could.

[ProSense]

82. Well, it has been interesting

Perry expressed an opinion and was roundly attacked and called every name in the book when she had a valid point.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. I see them both as really similar. Clinton has lots of fucked up

right wing 'compromise' policies that I never supported, as does Obama. But the thing is, it is the policies, not the people. Clinton is responsible for DOMA being the law, he enacted bigoted law. Obama wants that repealed, but he also opposes marriage equality, which is a hair splitting sort of support for both the intent of the bigoted law, and the repeal of that law.
The standards I apply are two fold, first, my own standards. So those who do that 'marriage is a Sacrament' crap are never going to get anything from me but strong opposition. Same for other policy issues, I will hold to my standards, and judge any policy by my own standards.
The second set of standards I will apply to any and all politicians are their own self stated standards. Both Obama and Clinton have areas where they did what they said they would do, and areas where they failed to meet their own stated standards. When anyone says 'I intend to do X' and instead they do less than X, they have failed a standard they set themselves. For Clinton and for Obama, lots of campaign standards were put aside very quickly. For Obama, he went from mocking mandates and Hillary for supporting them 'trying to fix health care by mandating that everybody has to buy insurance is like trying to solve homelessness by passing a law that everybody has to buy a house' he said in a debate. Then he passed a bill with mandates, with barely a mention of his previous intense opposition to mandates. By his stated standards, he failed. He got a bill, but it sure as hell was not the one he ran on. Clinton tried to get what they called then 'gays in the military' and wound up with DADT. Failure, by his standards and mine.
But Clinton's policies were so unpopular with liberals that many made the argument that 'the two Parties are just alike', Nader was in the mix, and all of that. Many on DU contend that Gore would have won if all those Nader liberals had voted for Gore. So claiming the Clinton policy got a warm welcome or a warm farewell is just not reflective of the truth. I stuck with Gore, but many I knew went Nader or stayed home out of deep, painful disappointment in Clinton era policies. So either he was not criticized, or he was, but the history shows that he got much criticism.
I will compare Clinton to Obama in one way. One is, and the other will be, a two term Democratic President. And people will continue to criticize policy and to advocate positions. As they did then, now and hopefully for some long time to come.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Good job of ignoring. With strategies like this, Obama is sunk.

You need to make your position clear. Do you believe that the DUers who are drifting away from support of Obama are doing so because you think they are racists?

Meanwhile, calling all the questioners racist is just another tactic of an administration that refuses to examine it's own weaknesses.

[ProSense]

89. No

"You need to make your position clear. "

...I don't. You need to reread the OP for answers to your questions. Next time try to understand what you're reading.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Yes.

You need to be honest. You talk all around it, but your premise is that liberals who don't support Obama but did support Clinton do so because they are racists.

That is nasty.

I do understand what I read. You were quite clear. But you hide behind a lot of words. Do you think my decision to question Obama's skills and decisions are because i am a racist?

Some questioned Hillary's abilities when she ran for the nomination. They supported a man instead of a woman. Does that tell us something?

There are black and white liberals who supported Obama in the primaries, a black man instead of a white man or woman. Were they doing so because they were racist?

I think you are bright enough to see how stupid this argument is. What you miss is how divisive and how destructive it is to the chances of the president being reelected. It is a stupid ploy and the PR or campaign jerk that thought it up should be fired.

[ProSense]

93. No

You need to be honest. You talk all around it, but your premise is that liberals who don't support Obama but did support Clinton do so because they are racists.

That is nasty.

I do understand what I read. You were quite clear. But you hide behind a lot of words. Do you think my decision to question Obama's skills and decisions are because i am a racist?

...you clearly don't understand what you read.

[Jakes Progress]

94. Yes

I can read. I can read what you wrote, and I can paste it in with your other posts to make sense of your evasions.

You are wrong and wrong-minded in this. If your goal is to help re-elect Obama, this strategy is just stupid.

[ProSense]

96. Here's

"You talk all around it, but your premise is that liberals who don't support Obama but did support Clinton do so because they are racists."

...an exercise: go the OP and snip where anything similar to that point was made.

"If your goal is to help re-elect Obama, this strategy is just stupid."

Individual posters having a discussion on an Internet board have nothing to do with Obama's re-election strategy. Speaking of "stupid," if you actually believe that making a point here is part of a bigger scheme, what's the "goal" of your "strategy" and who will it benefit?

[Jakes Progress]

98. There's

this. Could you tell me if you think that the white liberalson DU that post negatively about Obama's administration are motivated to do so because of their deep-seated racism? I only ask because you seem to champion Perry's article that posits this position. So do you support her in this?

[ProSense]

102. I

"There's this. Could you tell me if you think that the white liberalson DU that post negatively about Obama's administration are motivated to do so because of their deep-seated racism? I only ask because you seem to champion Perry's article that posits this position. So do you support her in this?"

...take it you couldn't find a snip in the OP to support your claim?

Still, your question has nothing to do with Perry's point.

[Jakes Progress]

109. You

reply and I'l snip. You accurately quoted my question. You simply forget to answer it.

[dsc]

100. Clinton did not have a similar Senate majority

His majority was at most 57, at the beginning and was 53 at the end. But more importantly he had a vastly more southern and thus conservative, majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

There were 2 Democratic Senators in TN, AL, LA, and AK. There was one in each of OK, TX, GA, FL, SC, VA, and KY. In comparison, Obama's 60 seat majority had only one seat in each of VA, NC, FL, LA, and AK. Even if you add in Alaska and NE as trouble spots for Obama's majority you then have to add in the two NE Senators we had under Clinton. I will concede that Lieberman was worse under Obama than he was under Clinton. Still, all things equal I would prefer Obama's Senate to Clinton's.

[ProSense]

101. Wrong

"His majority was at most 57, at the beginning and was 53 at the end. But more importantly he had a vastly more southern and thus conservative, majority."

He lost those Democrats after the 1994 elections. So effectively he had two years of a similar Congress, in both the Senate and the House.

103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).


104th Congress (1995-1997)
Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

link

[dsc]

103. You don't address at all the southern factor.

First, you don't address at all, the southern nature of the majority which made it different. That was the majority of my point. Out of his 57 Senators (which became 56 in June of 93), fully 15 came from OK or the old confederacy with an additional 3 from Kentucky or Nebraska. In comparison, of Obama's 60 which became 59, only 5 came from the old confederacy with an additional 2 from Nebraska and Alaska. His 60 were, on average, a much more liberal 60, than Clinton's 57. Clinton had Heflin, Johnson, Bumpers, Ford, Graham, Hollings, Nunn, Boren, Sasser, Mathews, Brauex, and Robb. On any given issue a bunch of them would be turncoats. It was a vastly more conservative bunch.

[ProSense]

104. Well

"You don't address at all the southern factor."

...you were wrong about the number and the rest is just spin. I mean, why not go back to LBJ and talk about the "southern factor" and achievement?

[dsc]

106. actually I have discussed that

The fact is Johnson had worse Democrats but better Republicans to work with in 64.

It isn't spin. The simple fact is Clinton had a way more conservative body to work with (56 vs 60) is a bit of a deal but so is 15 vs 5. To take one example. DADT repeal got every single Democratic vote in 2010. In 1993, only Robb, among Senators serving in the old confederacy supported gay serving openly. Right there, gays serving became a majority issue the other way in the Senate.

[ProSense]

107. So

The fact is Johnson had worse Democrats but better Republicans to work with in 64.

It isn't spin. The simple fact is Clinton had a way more conservative body to work with (56 vs 60) is a bit of a deal but so is 15 vs 5. To take one example. DADT repeal got every single Democratic vote in 2010. In 1993, only Robb, among Senators serving in the old confederacy supported gay serving openly. Right there, gays serving became a majority issue the other way in the Senate.

...Johnson had better Republicans, meaning that Clinton was in the worst position of the three? Really?

Clinton was the President, he didn't have to push for DADT. There were enough Democratic Senators opposed to it that had he not wanted it, he could have opted for another course, an executive order.

Thirty-three Democrats supported (63 Senators opposed, not enough to override a veto) Boxer's amendment to strip the language from the bill, and force an executive order, which would have remained in effect until Clinton's term ended. There would have been no law to repeal, and Bush would have had a hard time passing such a law.

All of this is to show that making claims about what Obama could have done, but Clinton couldn't do is nonsense.

[dsc]

108. I didn't say Clinton had the worst of the three

though he probably did. Johnson had a 2/3 majority counting the southerners and he had enough GOP votes to make up for defectors. The Civil Rights bill actually got a higher percentage of GOP votes than Democratic ones. In the case of your specific example, one there was the sodomy law which couldn't be repealed by executive order and which hadn't been ruled unconstitutional yet. That alone was enough to prevent gays from serving just like the law alone kept gays out of careers that required licenses and kept them from getting custody of children well into the late 80's and early 90's in many states. I personally, had to sign a statement that I hadn't and wouldn't engage in sodomy to get a teaching license in MS in 1995. Also there are four other votes out there in your example. I wouldn't bet the farm on four people who were too chicken to vote the first time. There were two, and only two choices, at this point. One was to enact a version of DADT and the other was to let the status quo at that time continue. The status quo was that gays were subject to witch hunts and literally being jailed. It doesn't take a gay rocket scientist to choose option one.

[RetroLounge]

105. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

sad

RL