Don’t be a hater

Jay Cost (h/t WMCB):

As an exclamation point, it’s worth noting that the left has been expressing its discontent with Clintonian moderation for over a decade.. In 2000 Bill Bradley challenged Al Gore from the left, and fell just 6,000 votes short in New Hampshire — a Bradley victory there would have made for an interesting primary race. Nine months later, Ralph Nader played the spoiler, winning about 3 percent of the popular vote, most of which came from the left wing of the Democratic party that was attracted to Nader’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” attack on Gore and Bush. In Florida Nader won 97,488 votes – and it’s a sure bet that, had he not run (or if the left had not been looking for an alternative that year), Gore would have won 538 more Nader votes than Bush. And then of course Obama won the nomination in 2008 not just by running against George W. Bush, but against the Bush and Clinton years. Importantly, the number of delegates Obama won from the primaries and caucuses was not enough to secure the nomination – he needed the help of the party establishment (the so-called “Super Delegates”) to defeat Hillary Clinton. That they backed Obama over the wife of the former president says a lot about where today’s Democratic party is.

(Emphasis added)

Think about that for a second and then read this piece from Peter Wehner that Angie brought us:

Obama’s No Bill Clinton

It turns out that in almost every respect, Clinton was a more formidable political figure than Obama, and certainly more competent. And as we get closer to 2012, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear Democrats speak longingly of the Clinton Era, as glory days compared to the dangerous, even ruinous, prospects they now face

Let’s talk about the Big Dawg:

If you think “Boo-Hoo Barack” has had it rough, check out what the Big Dawg had to deal with when he took office. Republicans immediately seized on the fact that Clinton had not won a majority of the popular vote to claim he lacked “legitimacy.” Some GOPers were talking about impeachment before he was even inaugurated.

During Bill’s first year in office he had to deal with Whitewater, “Travelgate” the Waco/Branch Davidian raid/stand-off, the battle of Mogadishu and the death of Vince Foster. That was in addition to the controversies over some of his nominees and the cold shoulder Bill and Hillary received from Sally Quinn and the rest of the Village idiots.

Molly Ivins reported in May 1993 that a Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to ensure that Hillary Clinton was discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day he would send out talking points to radio talk show hosts with bogus stories about her.

Although FOX News didn’t go on the air until October 1996, by 1992 the Republican Noise Machine was already in operation. This included talk radio, the right-wing punditocracy (print and television), conservative “think tanks” and coordinated “messaging” directed by the leadership of the Republican party.

The “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” began to take shape. GOP congresscritters used used their “oversight” power to scrutinize every burp and fart at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then they screamed for the appointment of special prosecutors. Richard Mellon Scaife spent $2 million dollars on the Arkansas Project, funding investigations of the Clintons with the intent of damaging and/or ending Bill’s presidency. Everything, including gossip, rumor and innuendo ended up in the media.

The Clintons were investigated again and again for over eight years. There were THREE separate investigations of Whitewater and every one of them concluded that there was no wrongdoing by Bill and Hillary. Not one investigation concluded that Hillary had ever broken the law, but Ken Starr was able to prove (after spending $70 million) that Bill lied about getting a blow-job.

During Bill’s first two years in office Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Despite this fact he was unable to get health care reform passed and when he tried to keep his promise to lift the ban on gays in the military Congress threatened to codify the policy into law, so Bill settled for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which was an improvement over the original policy.

But the “centrist” Clinton signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Brady Bill and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. He also expanded the Earned Income Credit.

Bill supported ratification of the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) even though Hillary privately disagreed. The treaty had been negotiated by the Poppy Bush administration but had not been finalized. Prior to sending it to Congress, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and to require Mexico and Canada to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to the United States. The treaty was ratified and took effect on January 1, 1994.

The Obots like to claim that Clinton “lost Congress” but this is complete bullshit. The Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for over 40 years and the Senate for most of that same time. But during that period there had been a political realignment that had seen the South turn “red.” In the late eighties and early nineties there had been a number of scandals in Congress, most of them involving Democrats.

In 1994 the Republican party and the Conservative Movement were on the rise. They were well organized and well funded, with media, messaging and candidate recruitment operations. Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republicans ran a nationally based campaign centered on the “Contract With America.” Their campaign worked, and the GOP took control of both houses of Congress.

There’s an old saying in football – “Offense wins games, defense wins championships.”  Bill Clinton spent the last six years of his time in office playing defense against a high-powered Republican offense determined to repeal the New Deal and the Great Society.  The Big Dawg stuffed them, beating them over and over.

Many proggers (most of them born with silver spoons in their mouths) whinge about “welfare reform” as if Clinton criminalized poverty. I’ll let the Big Dawg explain hisself:

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn’t be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.

The success of welfare reform was bolstered by other anti-poverty initiatives, including the doubling of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 for lower-income workers; the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income, noncustodial fathers into jobs; the Access to Jobs initiative, which helped communities create innovative transportation services to enable former welfare recipients and other low-income workers to get to their new jobs; and the welfare-to-work tax credit, which provided tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients.

I also signed into law the toughest child-support enforcement in history, doubling collections; an increase in the minimum wage in 1997; a doubling of federal financing for child care, helping parents look after 1.5 million children in 1998; and a near doubling of financing for Head Start programs.

The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.

Ted Rall and the Obots like to blame Clinton for Gore’s “loss” in 2000, but that’s not what happened.  From Wikipedia:

Clinton’s job approval rating ranged from 36% in mid-1993 to 64% in late 1993 and early 1994. In his second term, his rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s. After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with an approval rating of 68%, which matched those of Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt as the highest ratings for departing presidents in the modern era.

Gore ran a terrible campaign, distancing himself from the popular Big Dawg and selecting Clinton critic Holy Joe Lieberman as his VP nominee.  Meanwhile George Bush was the “media darling” while they transformed Al Gore into a serial liar. If you want a good description of what took place in the 2000 election, check out Bob Somerby’s “How He Got There.”

The Clinton years were a period of peace and prosperity. We saw the longest period of economic expansion in modern history, while the gap between rich and poor shrank as most of the prosperity went to the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder. Clinton turned the federal budget deficit into a surplus. But some morons call that period a “squandered opportunity.”

Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win two full terms since FDR. Prior to his election in 1992 the Democratic candidates were beaten like ugly step-children in three consecutive elections and had lost five of the previous six.

The sole win was Jimmy Carter in 1976 and that came on the heels of Watergate. Carter ended up being a one-term wonder, losing badly to Ronnie Raygun in 1980. Carter’s approval rating is substantially higher now than it was when he left office due to his post-POTUS activities.

You would think is would be a no-brainer that a Democrat as successful and popular as Bill Clinton would be much beloved by the leaders of the Democratic party. But not only is Bill Clinton not beloved, they actually despise him.

Barack Obama was not the original ABC (Anybody But Clinton) candidate in 2008 – that honor went to John Edwards. Although they were publicly supportive of Hillary’s candidacy, secretly the Democratic establishment was plotting her defeat.

Even though she won all the big states except Illinois (most by landslides) and all the swing states the party leaders moved Heaven and Earth to ensure Hillary didn’t get the nomination.

So now we have Barack “failure is the only option” Obama in the White House. Thanks for nothing, guys!

If you ever wondered what Lois Lane felt like when Superman swooped down and rescued her from certain death, listen to Laura Ling:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Don’t be a hater

  1. Pips says:

    Ay-ay-ay, arrrgh!

    That was painful. And what do they mean … “self-effacing”? What, where, when?

    (Sorry to be OT – sort of. Just had to share my pain.)

    • Three Wickets says:

      Think there’s a bit of…you can let your hair down around me, I’m different from the stiff white guys who came before. Feel free to laugh at my corny jokes, because it does wonders for my ego and you all know that my ego needs constant feeding.

  2. Passeryby says:

    LOL, Isn’t it a bit ironic that the articles you quoted were written by two Republicans. And what are they praising Clinton for? You guessed it the reason the left couldn’t support his wife in 2008, “Clinton’s Centrism” aka Triangulation.

    What was the reason Jay Cost gave for Obama not being Clinton?? I’ll quote “Obama, who is turning the Democratic Party into a pre-Clinton party, one characterized by unalloyed liberalism”

    Is Obama turning the Democratic Party into a pre-Clinton party, one characterized by unalloyed liberalism??. All Obama is doing is following Clinton’s Modus Operandi headed by the DLC of Triangulation.

    Answer me this since Obama has been in office has his Governance been:
    1. Left-Leaning
    2. Centrist
    3. Right-Leaning

    • Mary says:

      His governance has been incompetent.

      In the real world, that’s what matters.

      Deal with it.

      • Passeryby says:

        What did he do or didn’t do that was incompetent??

        • Mr. Mike says:

          Sorry, I only reply to trollgrams once.

        • myiq2xu says:

          What did he do or didn’t do that was incompetent??

          That list is too long. Here’s a list of things he did competently:

          1. Killed a fly

        • Sandress says:

          I think your point is fair. I don’t want to give him credit for being merely incompetent when everything I know about him tells me that he in fact actually malicious and actively opportunistic.

          But how about, just to start with: screwed the pooch on healthcare, fucked up gays in the military, boned women over and over, messed up on the oil spill to a seriously epic degree, and fucked the stimulus and economy beyond repair.

          Bill Clinton wasn’t “triangulating”, he was being a political populist and pragmatist. He was working from the center. No, he was not a super liberal God. But he managed to enact enormously liberal policy. Obama, on the other hand is not being centrist, or populist. He is being nakedly a Reaganomics-loving, corporate toady, who is willing to fuck every piece of liberal social policy in order to curry favor with the corporate overlords. He is sucking corporate cock, which in my opinion is alot worse than getting a blowjob.

    • Mr. Mike says:

      So because her husband did what he could with an antagonistic congress (both D’s and R’s) and a hostile print and broadcast media the Kosshole wing of the party threw their support behind an untested, no record, product of the crooked Chicago political machine.

      • Passeryby says:

        The same excuses you give Clinton I can use it to defend Obama’s actions in office too.

        • myiq2xu says:

          The same excuses you give Clinton

          My excuses for Clinton: Booming economy, low unemployment, no wars.

        • Karma says:

          Renaming Dubya’s policies or just doubling down on them isn’t a leader. That is a follower.

          Primary and general election candidate ‘Me too’ governs the same way he debates.

    • myiq2xu says:


      • Passeryby says:

        Ok … We agree ….

      • Mr. Mike says:

        I’d say pragmatic, remember how his own party gave Glass-Stegall a veto proof majority?

        And that wasn’t the first time they sold him out.

        • Mr. Mike says:

          Sorry, my, for some reason I thought we were discussing Bill. For Obama it’s leaning to the rear as he never put himself out there like Bill did.

    • Three Wickets says:

      I personally don’t think Hillary’s politics are identical to Bill’s. That plays to the same popular Obot presumption that Hillary was never anybody but Bill’s wife. Actually she might have been an even stronger Potus than Bill, never as good a politician, but possibly a more emphathetic and visionary leader during some very hard years for the country. I don’t see her as deep in the pockets of Wall Street as Obama has been, don’t think she would have bailed out banks and corporations to the degree Obama has, mortgaged our future and put us in as much crippling long term debt as Obama has, and ignored Main Street and the working class as much as Obama has. She would not have been afraid to tell big banks and creditors to take their licks and cuts along with everyone else. And her biggest priority would have been jobs.

      • Mr. Mike says:

        Obama can’t bite the hand that got him into the White House so no perp walk for the Wall Street banksters.

        • Karma says:

          Yup, the corporate whore would rather be rich than effective with a genuine legacy.

          Of course, anyone looking into his Chicago roots should have figured out that personality flaw easily.

      • Jadzia says:

        I don’t think I’ll EVER see a politician as good as Bill in this lifetime. (I still think Hill is smarter, though!)

    • Karma says:

      4. Bush III

  3. Mr. Mike says:

    The above makes what the Kossholes did all the more reprehensible.

    2012 is the republicans to lose.

    I know that unless Obama is primaried, Joe Sestack will be the last time I voted Democrat. If it’s Obama and Sarah Palin doesn’t run on a platform of cleaning up the filth, I’ll sit this one out.

  4. Mr. Mike says:

    I just looked up Bill Clinton on wiki to see what a real leader looks like as opposed to some political construct in an expensive suit. He had an almost rock star presence when governor of Arkansas. Not unexpected since his second love was music.

  5. Rocky Hussein Squirrel says:

  6. Dario says:

    :Visually, Bill Clinton vs. RR

    I came across this website. I can’t vouch for its veracity, but it’s amazing to see how great Bill Clinton was as president.

    • Dario says:

      Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.

      The link above has charts that confirm that statement.

  7. djmm says:

    Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of my lifetime and he managed it under atrocious circumstances. The MSM was a virulent cesspool during those years and CDS was rampant.


  8. WMCB says:

    The idiot passerby thinks Bill was not liberal enough, because he has a weird definition of liberal.

    His definition of liberal as evidenced in his Messiah is “promise the ideological moon, with no sense of responsibility whatsoever, no way to pay for any of it, while playing dirty politics behind the scenes with the banksters and lobbyists and power grabbing at every aspect of the private citizen’s life”

    Biil’s definition, as evidenced by his actions, is “do as much as you possibly can for the little guy, while making sure the private sector booms, and still find ways to pay for it all.”

    I’m really tired of centrist being a dirty word. From what I can see, that kind of centrism accomplished a pretty damn Liberal result, without any accompanying Statist interfering hell, and without blowing the budget.

    God save me from fucking utopian ideologues. I want a practical, hard-working president again. I don’t want a Big Collectivist Vision that stubbornly ignores how the private sector works in the real world. And I don’t want a Big Free Market Vision that stubbornly ignores those who get left behind in that prosperity.

    Want me to say it? Yeah, I’ll say it: GIVE ME A FUCKING COMPETENT CENTRIST. Give me a president who can confidently walk that razor’s edge between statist stagnation and capitalist unconcern. Who can cannily triangulate and balance competing pros and cons to create a society that is free, prosperous and entrepreneurial, and mindful of what happens to the little guy.

    Spare me the childish longing for and insistence on a fairytale society that has never, in any nation, at any time existed, even when compelled at the point of a gun.

    Want me to say it again, loud and proud? GIVE ME A COMPETENT CENTRIST, with his or her feet firmly planted in the-world-as-it-is.

    • 1539days says:

      Uh-oh, that sounds an awful lot like Palin. We all know Palin is dumb and right wing and shoots puppies from the back of an SUV and eats the souls of sick children.

    • angienc says:


      I’ll co-sign that.

      Actually Hunstman is looking better to me. First, the wingnuts hate him (always a plus, IMO). Second, he had the highest job growth in his state of all the other former-Govs. in the race. Third, he worked in the private sector in a very successful family business (as in, his dad started total middle-class & the ended up millionaires). Finally, his family has adopted one Indian & one Chinese daughter (aw!)

      He has that Mormon, problem though. But so does Mitt — and I rather go with Huntsman.

      • votermom says:

        He seems too in with the in-crowd fro me.

        • angienc says:

          Undoubtedly true. But lets face the facts, those “in” with the “in-crowd” are going to be are only choices (including Obama). I’m only trying to find the cream of the crap.

    • Passeryby says:

      I have a weird definition of Liberal? My definition of Liberal is the true definition of Liberal. Yours on the other-hand is what Conservatives long for Liberals to be (I’m assuming you’re a conservative).

      You would rather the Dems nominate Centrist/Moderate Candidates from now on. But would you wish the same for the GOP? I’m sure you wouldn’t you would rather they nominate the most conservative candidate.

      I’d rather my president espouse LBJ/FDR Liberal values instead of Clinton’s. And I’m assuming you being a conservative would rather your president espouse Reagan Conservative Values. I would prefer a president that rocked the boat like FDR, LBJ & Reagan (Yes, He did rock the boat but in a direction I opposed) than a president that rode the fence like Clinton did.

      You seem to be a fan of the Clintons. Tell me did you support his push for Universal HC in the 90’s or did you see it as Socialism ? Would you have supported Hilliary’s push for it if she was POTUS?

      • myiq2xu says:

        Man are you ever barking up the wrong tree.

      • 1539days says:

        You have expressed some valid points and given me much to think about. I never realized how much I’ve strayed in my liberal values by the false lionization of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe I should consider the heart of President Obama and the many burdens he has to bear.

        Now, where’s my cut of that Obama blogger money?

        • myiq2xu says:

          Me too! Me too!

        • WMCB says:

          I know. I’m very ashamed of my transgression against liberal values in assuming that actual measurable results for actual real people matter most How could I betray the cause like that? I completely forgot that it was all about a dream of a perfect society, and the soaring words of the Great Leader describing what that would look like if it ever happened.

          My bad.

      • WMCB says:

        LMAO! This one is just too cute and self-important for words, ain’t he? The setting up of the strawmen is not particularly skillful. I’ve seen much better, honestly.

        I will give him points for a nice level of ever-so-wounded and indignant umbrage in replying to the strawmen he just set up, though. That was adorable.

        He gets points off for opening with an impassioned “I possess the One True Truth of Liberalism” gambit. That one rang tinny.

        Meh. He gets…. maybe a 4 on the troll scale? What do you guys think? *leans back and picks at a hangnail*

        • myiq2xu says:

          I’ve seen much better, honestly.

          It’s like watching the 15th sequel of a movie that was original and funny. Now the stars have all been replaced with unfunny nobodies and it’s just the same old tired jokes.

          “Police Academy 23 – The Grandkids”

      • angienc says:

        Clinton was & is an FDR/LBJ liberal, dumbass. Seriously, you can lie all you want to yourself about it, because you can’t lie to us & you certainly cannot change history.

Comments are closed.