Obama is well to the left of Bill Clinton.

[DanTex]

Can we at least agree on that? Sometimes it seems that anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is derided by most DUers as a Third-Way Centrist, but the fact of the matter is, while Clinton did govern as a centrist or conservative Dem, Obama is not doing that.

If we look at some of Clinton's major legislations:
-Financial Deregulation -- repeal glass Steagal and CFMA
-NAFTA
-Welfare Reform
-DOMA and DADT (although, to be fair, DADT was a step forward at the time, and DOMA had enough votes to override a veto)

Now, that list isn't entirely fair to Clinton, he also did some good things: SCHIP, gun control, raised top tax rate, etc. But still, his legacy is mainly as a centrist who compromised with Gingrich and the GOP, and pushed a neoliberal, deregulatory economic agenda, and some of his policies directly set the stage for the financial collapse in 2008.

On the other hand, Obama's major legislations:
-Obamacare
-Stimulus
-Dodd-Frank
-Intervened to save auto industry
-Ended war in Iraq
-Repealed DADT

And I'm not cherry-picking here. These are actually the most significant policies that Obama enacted. What's "Third-Way" about anything on this list? Sure, Obamacare isn't single payer, but it's obviously a step in the right direction. Sure, the stimulus wasn't big enough, and Dodd-Frank wasn't strong enough, but again, these aren't Third-Way policies -- and, of course, there is the reality of having to get things through congress.

That doesn't mean he's as liberal as I would want him to be, although his accomplishments are pretty close to as liberal as they could possibly be given the Republican opposition he is facing.

[djean111]

1. I don't see the relevance at this point.

Obama is not running again. He is gonna do what he wants to do, like the TPP - which I believe is as bad as anything Bill has done.
Hillary is not to the left of Bill Clinton.
That is what concerns me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. +1.

Talking about where Obama falls on the political spectrum became irrelevant as soon as he was re-elected and was term-limited out of a further run.

[DanTex]

5. Well, it's at least as relevant as the daily deluge of Obama-bashing OPs.

If we're going to discuss Obama, let's at least do it honestly.

[djean111]

7. I think you are confusing policy-bashing with Obama-bashing.

Or do you believe that we should be happy about, for instance, the TPP, because Obama has been a bit liberal on other things?

I do not, and I will not.

[DanTex]

9. Call it what you will, it is still equally relevant.

I'm not saying you should be in favor of TPP, or anything else for that matter. But to say that Obama has been "a bit liberal" isn't accurate.

Do you disagree that the legislation I listed included his major policy accomplishments in office? They are all liberal policies. The only criticism of them is that they didn't go far enough. But that doesn't make him a third-way centrist, as the comparison with Bill Clinton demonstrates.

[krawhitham]

8. I think the point is, people around here praise Clinton while they shit on Obama

[djean111]

12. Only some people.

I think Hillary is another Third-Wayer, and no praise from me.

[DanTex]

20. Another point: yes, there was a time when the party being run by Third-Wayers was a big concern.

But it's not that way anymore. Yes, there are some centrist/conservative Dems, but Obama isn't one of them, and that's not generally where the party is headed.

[NCTraveler]

74. "I think the point is, people around here praise Clinton while they shit on Obama"

The Big Dog and Obama are two of the most shitted on people here. To make your claim is not right. It would be like me saying "I think the point is, people around here praise Obama while they shit on Clinton". Of course I could find posts to back any of these fallacious arguments.

[Scuba]

22. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Iggo]

3. Obama ain't running.

Neither is Bill Clinton, for that matter.

[frazzled]

6. He is the president, however: for two and a half more years

Is the only interest of people here in the next election cycle ... over and over again?
Are you, like the Republicans, trying to relegate him to lame-duck status this many years before the end of his presidency?

[djean111]

10. Does he need a fan club cheering section or something?

Do you understand that some people here are hoping for a more liberal president in the next election cycle?
We gave up on this one.
Obama does not need our campaign contributions or our praise.
He is set. Some of us are looking to a better future, that's all.
And to hear his admirers, he has been a lame duck since he took office. Hands are always tied, etc.
But yes, how is he not a lame duck? Is there going to be a push to amend the Constitution, or what is left of it, for a third term? Yikes.

[frazzled]

47. Stating that he is the current US President is being a "fan"?

I think that's a bit over the top.

My point was that the post suggested it's irrelevant to talk about someone unless they're running for election two years from now. I disagree that it's illegitimate to discuss presidents past or present. Why can't that be a topic of discussion amongst the millions of threads here? There seems to be a chasing-rainbows crowd who is always looking for the next savior, and always being disappointed. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[djean111]

48. What's to talk about, except policy?

And it is policy I am interested in, not personality or speeches.
Nothing wrong in looking for a savior- the opposite is to meekly accept what has happened to the poor and the middle class.

[frazzled]

52. The OP was precisely about policy /nt

[djean111]

64. Where is the TPP on that list?

Putting Chained CPI on the table? Appointing people like the head of the FCC? There is a bigger picture than that list.
And, again, why does it matter what any of us says or thinks about Obama? He has been reelected, and cannot run again.
He is now free to do whatever he wants - or else his hands are tied. I have no idea what he really wants to do. And speeches are pointless.
Also, was not aware that wanting liberal/progressive policy is just dismissed as chasing rainbows. Interesting, that.
Comparing Obama to Bill is funny to me, personally, because the more I find out what Bill's policies caused, the more distaste I have, and I have no reason to believe Hillary would be any different.

[frazzled]

69. The OP lists only policies that were accomplished

in the two administrations. The TPP, if ever passed, could of course be added to the list as a negative if you like. But when comparing two presidential administrations' policies, as the OP does, it's not fair to include things that have not actually become policy.

[Iggo]

23. No, I'm not like a Republican.

Thanks for asking.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Of course

even though the whole discussion is irrelevant, if Obama passes TPP as he's been pushing, he'll out-NAFTA Clinton. He's pushed further 'free trade' agreements during his time in office. He's expanded our 'non-wars', using military strikes in countries we're 'not at war with', he's defended mass surveillance of the populace by the security state.

He had to be pushed into supporting same sex marriage.

So no, I don't think we can agree that he's 'well to the left' of Bill Clinton. He's to the 'left' on some things, and to the 'right' on others.

[DanTex]

14. If you want, call it a wash on "free trade", even though it's much more complicated then that.

Particularly since TPP hasn't happened signed yet, we don't actually know what's in it, it doesn't include China, and there are already bilateral agreements in place with a lot of the countries, etc.

But, OK. That still leaves us with deregulation versus re-regulation. Welfare reform versus the most important social legislation in many decades. Signing DOMA versus ending DADT and being the first president to support gay marriage.

[bvar22]

40. Call it a wash on "Free Trade"?

Obama's Korean Free Trade Deal devastating for US Workers

What happened to the 70,000 jobs that the Korea Free Trade deal was supposed to create? They never materialized. Instead, U.S. workers lost 40,000 jobs in the first year of the agreement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html

Your other categories are superficial.

*"Stimulus" is neither Conservative nor Liberal.
It is HOW the "stimulus" is applied that makes ALL the difference.
Tax Cuts = Conservative Stimulus
Jobs Programs, InfraStructure Spending, Direct Assistance for those in need, and other programs that put MONEY into the hands of the people that will SPEND IT = Liberal Stimulus.
Guess what the majority of Obama's "Stimulus" was.

*Obamacare:
You DO know that a Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations IS a Republican Health Care Plan straight out of the Heritage Foundation?
Yes?

*Dodd-Frank:
a Congressional Initiative signed by President Obama that has proven to be toothless.
Even Barney Frank admits that:
*It will NOT prevent another Melt Down
*It did NOTHING about Too Big to Fail, that is even WORSE now
*Did NOT re-establish the Fire Wall between Investment & Commercial Banks

*Saved the Auto Industry:
and engaged in Union Busting.
One of the prerequisites was that UNION make major concessions in Wages & Benefits,
and allow NEW Auto Plants to be Non-Union Shops.
This was a striking Double Standard compared to the Wall Street Bailout
where "contracts" were sacred, and Bankers "entitled" to their BONUSES.

*Ended the War in Iraq:
President Obama adhered exactly to the Withdrawal Time Table negotiated bu the Bush Administration in 2008.
The Obama Administration DID request an extension to the Withdrawal Date,
and was told "NO" by the Iraqi parliament.

Here. Listen to the man himself tell you about his "Moderate" Policies:

If you want to call something a WASH,
I will agree that trying to decide WHO is more conservative,
Obama or Clinton.....
well THAT is a "wash".

I believe that Bill Clinton's undisputed title of Best Republican President EVER
is in grave jeopardy. It won't be as much fun for the Big Dog to be 2nd Best.




You will know them by their WORKS.

[DanTex]

53. Really? Comparing an obscure deal with South Korea to NAFTA?

*"Stimulus" is neither Conservative nor Liberal.
It is HOW the "stimulus" is applied that makes ALL the difference.
Tax Cuts = Conservative Stimulus
Jobs Programs, InfraStructure Spending, Direct Assistance for those in need, and other programs that put MONEY into the hands of the people that will SPEND IT = Liberal Stimulus.
Guess what the majority of Obama's "Stimulus" was.

I don't have to guess. The majority of it was spending. And the tax credits were also progressive, primarily targeting lower incomes.

*Obamacare:
You DO know that a Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations IS a Republican Health Care Plan straight out of the Heritage Foundation?
Yes?

I do know that. And I also know that it is the most significant social legislation in many decades, and it is already saving lives and helping millions of Americans.

*Dodd-Frank:
a Congressional Initiative signed by President Obama that has proven to be toothless.
Even Barney Frank admits that:
*It will NOT prevent another Melt Down
*It did NOTHING about Too Big to Fail, that is even WORSE now
*Did NOT re-establish the Fire Wall between Investment & Commercial Banks

True, it didn't go far enough. That's what happens when there are Republicans in congress. But "toothless" is just wrong. Among many things:
-The CFPB (proposed by Elizabeth Warren)
-The Volker Rule
-Regulation of derivatives, and requiring central clearing
-Requiring hedge funds to register with the SEC
-and so on

*Saved the Auto Industry:
and engaged in Union Busting.
One of the prerequisites was that UNION make major concessions in Wages & Benefits,
and allow NEW Auto Plants to be Non-Union Shops.
This was a striking Double Standard compared to the Wall Street Bailout
where "contracts" were sacred, and Bankers "entitled" to their BONUSES.

Requiring re-negotiations in the face of impending bankruptcy is not "union busting". The point is, the auto industry continues to exist today because of Obama.

*Ended the War in Iraq:
President Obama adhered exactly to the Withdrawal Time Table negotiated bu the Bush Administration in 2008.
The Obama Administration DID request an extension to the Withdrawal Date,
and was told "NO" by the Iraqi parliament.

Please don't tell me you actually think Bush or any Republican would actually have gotten us out.

You're really stretching to try and find ways to hate Obama...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

75. It's not obscure.

You being ignorant of something doesn't mean it's obscure, it means you haven't done your homework.

[DanTex]

86. Compared to NAFTA, yes, it is.

[dawg]

11. For what it's worth, I agree that Obama is to the left of Bill Clinton.

I wouldn't say "well" to the left though, considering that chained CPI was on the table, raising the Medicare age was discussed, and the TPP still might happen.

Neither man pursued an aggressive liberal agenda. Both gave lip service to conservative economic world views.

Both men were better Presidents than their opponents would have been.

[djean111]

13. Plus a million. Better than the other guy, that's about it.

[Prophet 451]

15. Picking specific policies is always a pointless excercise

I'm prepared to accept your premise, I just think comparing X to Y, given the radically different atmosphere at each time, is pointless.

That said, one could also point to Obama's continuance of teh drone war and indefinite detention.

[DanTex]

17. That's a fair point, but I don't know a better approach.

Obviously, the policies that get passed also depend on congress. But still, in terms of financial regulation/deregulation and social legislation, it's pretty clear that Obama is more liberal. Foreign policy and free trade are probably about equal.

[Whisp]

18. Extraordinary Rendition and Bill Clinton:

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition

Whata Lefty! Combined with all the other great things like helping to birth the predatory Wall Street we know today, Welfare reform where the poor got poorer and more desperate while his rich friends got richer, like Dick Clark, who had the gov't help pay the working poors wages so he could cram more cash in his pants. Thanks bill!

The man is a literal god send to all of humanity. :sarc:

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. They just don't get it

President Barack Obama


Bill Clinton


Mitt Romney


George Bush


Hillary Clinton


Elizabeth Warren


Bernie Sanders

[cascadiance]

19. That "revised" political triangle seems to emphasize social issues more than others...

And puts Libertarian on one side versus populist on the bottom and has NO real measurement for authoritarian scale (where both libertarians and populists are on the same part of the axis rather than on opposite ends). By emphasizing social policies, it ignores things like Obama's ignoring the constitution with drone strikes, and domestic spying, continuing things like Guantanamo, etc. that is ignored here, when it doesn't measure centralized authoritarian power that the older graphs measure. I believe that those using this "newer" graph have this as a goal to minimize the corporatists effort to have more centralized corporate and government control over the rest of us and divide and concur us by having the tea party and many of us "far left" people battle it out on social issues that the PTB don't care about as much.

We really need a REAL populist to be our next Democratic president, and it is pointless to try and rationalize whether Obama or Clintons are more "liberal" than the other, when NEITHER of them are where we want in terms of progressive populism!

And lets not forget Clinton's problematic signing of the Telecomm bill that gave us the really problematic corporate media control we have over many parts of our media now, and Obama's solidifying these oligarchic power's power over our communications by appointing FCC commissioners that basically are solidifying the court's shutdown of Net Neutrality, that is one of the few things that helps us fight against the problematic state of affairs created by that Telecomm bill.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. it HAS the Republican side on it....and I included Romney and Bush....as proof

denial is NOT a river in Egypt...

claiming that Social issues counts less in this matter says more about you than it does about these graphs...

[cascadiance]

25. I said it doesn't measure AUTHORITARIANISM...

Communism as much as fascism is close to the authoritarian part of the older graphs because they both ascribe to centralized control over the government. Libertarianism was more towards the opposite side of the graph on the "right side" of the older graphs as was populism on the left side that don't want centralized control with anarchy at the opposite extreme as complete dictatorship was on this scale. This scale IS NOT in this graph, as it tries to equivalence Republicanism with authoritarianisms and combines many different measurements which is more of a label than a practical measurement on what characterizes people's beliefs are of right versus left economic rules one one scale versus authoritarianism on the other, which is a lot more of a useful scale to provide real measurements, and not just "labels".

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. then make your own graph...

what you are describing is over on the Conservative side....none of the Democrats would fall into that category would they?

Besides its a bogus construct.

[DanTex]

32. The authoritarian/libertarian thing was a push poll designed to convert people to libertarianism.

By putting a word with negative connotations ("authoritarianism&quot as the "opposite" of libertarianism. In their view supporting things like food inspections or gun control makes one "authoritarian".

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Exactly!!! Dan

[BlindTiresias]

82. Actually that political graph

Was designed by libertarians. It is called the Nolan Chart.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well, let's see. You can vote for Bush Policies, ie, Bail out the Crooked Banks, Support all of

Wars and VOTE FOR THEM which both Hillary and Romney did and do.

What puts one of them on the Left Side and the other on the Right Side, are the minority rights issues.

If they had a Third Way Category, that is where Hillary would be.

Third Wayers support all of our draconian FP, same as the Right.

They support Wall St, same as the Right.

They also support 'putting Social Programs on the Table', same as the Right.

But if they support minority rights, that puts them on the 'left' side of THIS chart because there is no category to fit their Third Way views.

On social issues they get away with seeming to be on the Left. But ANYONE who puts SS out their on any table is a Third Wayer. When that is on the chart, it will have some significance. Meantime this chart is meaningless.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Third Way as YOU call it is not a traditional construct

If you know so much more about it...then make your own graph!

[sabrina 1]

39. No, the Third Way was invented a couple of decades ago to infiltrate Right Wing policies

on Social Programs, Foreign Policies and Corporate Welfare/Wall St support, into the Democratic Party. They already had the Republican Party but risked not getting their policies fully absorbed into this society unless they had at least half of the Dem Party also.

It was clever I have to admit, people WERE confused for a while as to why Democrats were voting for TRADITIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION/Republican policies. When people are confused, after a while they begin to look for answers.

Another mark of a Third Wayer is the disdain for the Traditional Left, that they share with Republicans also.

That is why you now hear from within the Dem Party comments like 'your ideas are retarded'. Yes, Rahm is a perfect example of the Third Way. Privatize Education is another of their policies.

I didn't know about them but WAS puzzled by the positions being taken by the Dem Party for a while, and then I discovered their website.

Deregulation of the media, eg, deregulation of the big Banks, a couple more of their policies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. and who cares about it other than you all?

its like your own personal "Bengazeeee!"

[grasswire]

85. "you all"?

Who is that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. people on this thread who agree with you perhaps?

[Dragonfli]

103. Why all of "them" that are out to get him/her of course

They are everywhere! It may not even be safe in the bathroom....

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. No one on this thread agreed with him or her?

I couldn't have been talking about them huh? That never crossed your mind? Hmmmmm speaks more about your thought processes than mine I would say....

[sabrina 1]

112. Lol, you wish I was the only one who cared about the Dem Party being infiltrated by

right wing operatives for nearly two decades now. I wish I had known about them ten years ago, it would have explained so many things that were going on that many of us could not understand. Like support for Right Wing issues by some 'democrats'. Support for all of Bush's foreign wars by some 'democrats'. We just couldn't seem to get so many 'democrats' on board for traditional Democratic Issues.

Thanks to all those who informed us, sorry it took us so long to get the message. But now millions know and that is a good thing. We can begin, and we are, the work of throwing them out of the Dem Party. THEY HAVE A PARTY, it is called the Republican Party and it needs them.

[Dragonfli]

99. You appear to know nothing at all "about it" or the Third Way right wingers - I'll educate you:

a few key facts should clarify who &quot D)Centrists" are, where they came from and how much damage has been done by them.

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.

The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats, one reason I found Obama's statement that he was, policy wise, closest to an 80's Republican refreshingly honest and at the time I gave him kudos for his honesty.

[Ikonoklast]

107. How much money did the bank bailout cost the taxpayers?

Hint: Nothing.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Another hint as to why it cost nothing: We made money on the deal. We are still making money on the deal.

[rhett o rick]

24. I cant make heads nor tails from those graphs. They show Sen Sanders and H. Clinton on equal

footing re. the economy. And I agree there is no where on there for war hawks.

[cascadiance]

28. Here's the more useful older graphs that one can really understand how it is being measured more...

The corporatists don't like it when it properly labels most of today's pols in the upper right corner to varying degrees, which is where they belong to show how we're really missing diversity of views in our current political spectrum of candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. there is NO data there to support those graphs...

MINE do! This is just someones mental image...

Epic Fail

P.S. the methodology can be found here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

[riqster]

50. Thanks for the link!

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. welcome!

[BlindTiresias]

83. On the issues

Uses a Nolan chart.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Of course you can't

you lean Libertarian!

[rhett o rick]

49. You cant play nice with others, can you. "You lean libertarian". Grow up. nm

[ConservativeDemocrat]

77. When someone starts libertarian agitprop, what else is anyone to think?

That whole "Authoritarian vs Libertarian" graph being linked to is nothing more than assertion-based libertarian propaganda. According to the chuckleheads who wrote it up, the ACA is "Authoritarian". And socialized medicine is even more so.

But because it is pure-hatred directed at President Obama, the screamer crowd here immediately picks it up and runs with it, with not even the faintest whiff of self-consistency. Kind of the D.U. equivalent of "Get your government hands off my medicare!"

You should grow up yourself, rhett.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

91. I find it interesting that some here where the posters are supposed to be "politically liberal"

disparage the left and embrace "Conservatives". The Republican Party is the party of conservatives.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

104. Rhett, you disparage Democrats constantly..

...all I ever do is defend them.

Hell, in the real world, I've done more for the left wing of my party than you ever have, even when I disagree with their particular positions on issues.

If people want to post Libertarian agitprop to the D.U. just because it happens to attack prominent Democrats they hate, then expect for at least a few people to point out the truth.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Fumesucker]

108. Rhett said "disparage liberals" not "disparage Democrats"

The two are by no means completely equivalent as can be easily deduced from your chosen handle.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. Read the data...

those other "graphs" are just someones mental artistic construct....

My graphs have data to support them...

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Perhaps because YOU have it all wrong to begin with...

paradigm shift!

[Marr]

81. It makes you wonder why they use the phrase, "the left" as a pejorative.

I mean shit, apparently Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are identical!

[bvar22]

54. Is that another Mr.Fish cartoon?

Because those "graphics" are HILARIOUS.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. Well if you don't like them; make your own!

Comedy gold right there.

[ronnie624]

29. Oh really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. How many free trade do we need? Because this administration

has gotten a few through. And then there is fast tracking of TTP.

If you reach the Presidency, you will dance to very particular interests. Those interests, sadly, do not include the people. That is the way it is in an oligarchy. I will include Bernie, if by mistake he made it up there.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. but much to your dismay that hasn't happened yet...

Oh and Bernie is on my list of graphs....

[rhett o rick]

51. Yes and according to "your" graphs, Sen Sanders and H. Clinton-Sachs agree on the economy. nm

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. Obama himself said "Nixon was more liberal".

I guess Obama is a liar.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. Context means everything...

"The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was," Obama told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "Started the EPA, you know, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has made our air and water clean."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197334-obama-nixon-was-more-liberal#ixzz318xwVSZg
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

If Obama is a "liar" wouldn't this out of context quote may you a Fox news Anchor?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

44. That's what we're discussing........

"Some of his policies". If OP is going to pick and choose, everyone else including the President might as well also.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. NO....because you don't base the value on just one or two issues...

as some here are want to do...

He is not picking and choosing....YOU are...you just also took the quote out of context and made it mean something else entirely....are you also a Fox News Anchor too?

[DanTex]

56. How am I picking and choosing? I listed his most important accomplishments.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. You aren't....you just don't base your entire opinion on just one or two issues

like some people on DU who seem to think any one candidate will come along that walks on water and gives them flying cars and sparkle ponies!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

72. Haha.

That exactly what that person did.


For the record, I agree with OP, but his premise is way off.

[Doctor_J]

106. And that he (Obama) is a moderate republican

How dare use use Obama's words against the president!

[jwirr]

45. I agree on the grounds that the repeal of Glass Seagel and NAFTA were so bad that many of us see

them as part of the bush era recession. This Obama list does nothing to hurt people. Unless of course you are rich!

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. I agree

Bill Clinton was as much in the middle as you can get IMO.

[randys1]

57. Who is left of who, blah de blah de blah (good question, not making fun of OP)

200+ years of fucking things up left and right by white protestant males, the FIRST Black man is elected and lots of folks insist that he solve ALL problems and overnight.

A. He never said he was a liberal to the extent that I would call him that, so I knew who I campaigned and voted for twice

B.He not only cant fix everything, he is facing unprecedented obstruction and HATE every time he does anything

If the people with all the money are liberals, then you can be a liberal, if the people with all the Democratic money are moderates, then either you be a moderate or nobody will know your name.

Tis why we must (and we never will) remove ALL money from campaigns/politics.

[Demeter]

59. NO he isn't.

No only no, but hell, no!

[Enrique]

61. they are essentially the same

comparing lists isn't a great way to look at them. You could compare a list from Obama's first term vs. a list from Obama's second term, you could find differences but he's the same person. Same with Clinton's first and second terms.

[DanTex]

62. If comparing policies isn't a good way to compare, how would you do it?

And given that, policy-wise, Obama is well to the left of Clinton, what makes you say they are essentially the same?

[Dawgs]

63. BS. You could easily make the argument that Clinton is to the left of Obama.

Clinton never started any war. Obama extended one.

Clinton had R. Reich as Secretary of Labor. Obama had Summers and Geitner on his economic team.

Obama is for TPP; which many say is worse than NAFTA.

And, since when is Obamacare a leftist anything? It's a Republican plan and idea. As a matter of fact, it was the Republican proposal when Clinton was trying to pass Hillarycare.

Obama also cut taxes for the rich. Clinton raised taxes.

Some of your other Obama legislation is hardly something that he came up with by himself. The stimulus was hardly leftist and ending the war in Iraq was on same schedule as Bush's proposal.

The point is, YOU'RE REACHING.

[DanTex]

66. Not a very convincing one...

In order to do it, you basically have to ignore the most significant policy achievements of both presidents.

--Clinton had R. Reich as Secretary of Labor. Obama had Summers and Geitner on his economic team.
Umm, Clinton appointed Larry Summers as Secretary of Treasury. And remember, at the time Reich was pro-NAFTA. But far more important is what they actually did on economic issues. Clinton pushed deregulation, setting up some of the policies that led to the financial collapse. Obama did the opposite with Dodd-Frank. So in terms of economic policy and financial regulation, it's a clear win for Obama.

--Clinton never started any war. Obama extended one.
Neither started a war. Obama ended a war. Granted, Clinton didn't have any war to end. But Clinton did ordered missile strikes in places like Sudan and Afghanistan. He also sat by and did nothing during the Rwandan Genocide. He intervened militarily in the Balkans (not sure if you'd consider that good or bad). All in all, I'd say foreign policy is a draw.

--Obama is for TPP; which many say is worse than NAFTA.
And many (most) say NAFTA is worse. They are both pro-free-trade.

--And, since when is Obamacare a leftist anything? It's a Republican plan and idea. As a matter of fact, it was the Republican proposal when Clinton was trying to pass Hillarycare.
Obamacare is the most significant social legislation since LBJ, and it is helping millions of people and saving lives. Yes, the mandate idea came from Heritage, but given that zero Republicans voted for it, it's hard to call it a "Republican plan". Clinton, on the other hand, passed welfare reform, which was actually a Republican idea, with Republicans voting for it. When it comes to social safety net legislation, Obama is clearly more progressive.

--Obama also cut taxes for the rich. Clinton raised taxes.
Actually, Obama let the Bush tax cuts at the top expire, effectively raising taxes. The stimulus tax credits were mainly targeted at lower incomes. So on taxes, it's about equal. But when it comes to economic policy in general, Obama is clearly more progressive.

--Some of your other Obama legislation is hardly something that he came up with by himself. The stimulus was hardly leftist and ending the war in Iraq was on same schedule as Bush's proposal.
Actually, everything I listed in the OP was pushed by Obama. The stimulus was classic Keynesian, if not "leftist". And if you think Bush or any Republican would have pulled out of Iraq like Obama did, you are fooling yourself.

[Dawgs]

78. Wrong again!

- They are both equally bad on economic policy and financial regulation.

- Obama is pro-drone, pro-war and authorized assassination of an American citizen. He thinks the Afghanistan war was worth it. Hardly a draw.

- Almost no one on the left has said NAFTA is worse. Many have said TPP is 'NAFTA on steroids'. Google 'NAFTA worse than TPP' and see what I mean.

- Whether Obamacare was a good idea or not is irrelevant to your argument. It was the Republican alternative to Clinton's proposal. And, you can't say Obama's legislation is more progressive just because his proposals passed and Clinton's didn't. That's not fair at all. Clinton tried and was unable to pass his own healthcare reform. Obamacare could have easily not passed if Democrats didn't have the majorities like they did. So, you really can't use Obamacare against Clinton and for Obama, since the only knock for Clinton is that his didn't pass and Obama's did.

- Obama let Bush tax cuts expire because the Democrats and his base made him. Remember, he extended them once. And just claiming that Obama's policy are more progressive is really not an effective argument.

- So, you admit that Obama just did what Bush said he was going to do anyway in regards to Iraq. That's hardly taking some great progressive stand.

- The stimulus was created because of the recession. Are you suggesting that any other Democrat (like Clinton) wouldn't have done the same thing? Pretty naive if you do.

[DanTex]

84. "They are both equally bad on economic policy and financial regulation"

That's beyond insane. Clinton's enduring legacy is that of deregulation. He ended Glass Steagall. He paved the way for unregulated over the counter derivatives. These are exactly the things that got us into trouble. On the other hand, the financial markets are a lot more regulated now than when Obama took office. It's not just a question of who did more or less. Clinton pushed in the wrong direction. Obama pushed in the right direction.

--I'll grant you that Clinton wasn't pro-drone. He didn't have drones, instead he was pro-missile strike. And if you are anti use of force for any reason, then you need to hold the Balkan intervention against Clinton. And if not, then you need to hold Rwanda against him. But either way, it's a draw.

--TPP: have you heard what Krugman has to say about it: "no big deal".

--Yes, it matters whether Obamacare is good or not. Obamacare is a clear and very significant example of Obama making the US a better place to live, and moving social policy in a progressive direction. If you want to count Clinton's health-care push, fine, but then you have to give Obama credit for the public option, expanding Medicaid in all states, universal pre-K funded by taxes on the wealthy, the DREAM act, the Buffett Rule on tax deductions, raising the minimum wage, large investments in infrastructure and science and technology, etc.

The point is, Obama has expanded the social safety net. Clinton, on the other hand, passed welfare reform. Which actually was a Republican policy -- and not in some abstract comparative sense, it was actually part of the Republican platform, it passed with mostly Republican votes, and was celebrated by Newt Gingrich. In contrast to Obamacare (the "Republican" plan, according to you...) which passed with zero Republican plans and universally virulent opposition.

--I don't know where you get the idea that "his base made him" do it. Is there any evidence that he didn't want to do it? Obama campaigned on letting the Bush Tax cuts expire, he's also proposed more taxes on the wealthy since then. All indications are, he actually wants a more progressive tax system.

--Obama also campaigned on ending the war with Iraq, and was criticized by Republicans, who wanted a large extended presence there. Yes, he gets credit for that. Maybe Clinton would have done it too. But if you think Bush and Cheney wouldn't have more troops in Iraq right now, you are kidding yourself.

--I don't know how much stimulus Clinton would have pushed for. Every presidency has its own set of challenges and circumstances. On the domestic front Obama dealt with the circumstances in a mostly progressive way, Clinton much less so if at all.

[Dawgs]

94. Getting closer.

- I'm glad you're finally admitting that your initial OP was cherry picking to make Obama look good; and Clinton look bad. And, maybe I should have said it much earlier, but I am in no way a big fan of Clinton. I don't disagree with anything you said about Clinton's record on the economy. I do disagree that Obama's records is pushing in the right direction.

- Clinton had his faults on using force in a few instances, but it's not close to the use of force displayed by Obama. BTW, why have you refused to point out Obama's record regarding the NSA? Again, cherry picking to make Obama look good and Clinton look bad.

- Krugman has said that he's not sure yet on TPP, not that it's 'no big deal'. Glad to know that you have no problem with it. I guess as long as Obama and one leftist economist are okay with it, so are you.

- Obamacare push versus push for healthcare by Clinton makes it a draw, which means you can't use any part of it for your argument. In your OP you use it to argue that Obama has done more than Clinton. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. Cherry-picking!!

The point is they BOTH tried to expand the social safety net. Obama passed Obamacare, a Republican plan that was used against Hillarycare. Even Obama said it was a Republican plan. Hardly progressive.

"Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. This was a bipartisan idea. In fact, it was a Republican idea." President Obama, 2012 debate

- Neither of us have any idea, so not really a good argument for this OP.

- We know that Obama didn't do anything hard when getting out of Iraq. And, I would hope any Democrat would ignore the Republicans.

- Clinton didn't have to deal with the recession Obama inherited, so really can't use the stimulus in your comparison.

Sorry, pretty much your entire argument is cherry-picking and what-ifs.

[DanTex]

97. Umm, what cherry picking?

I listed the main policy accomplishments of each president. That's not cherry picking. Quite the opposite.

-- Yes, both Clinton and Obama used force more than you would want them to. They both believed in humanitarian intervention. On foreign policy they are pretty similar.

-- Yes, Krugman literally said "No Big Deal". Of course, TPP hasn't passed yet, and the details are unknown.

-- I included Obamacare in the OP because it would be absurd to list Obama's major accomplishments while omitting it. Like I said, if we're giving credit for things that didn't pass, then health care is a draw, but then there's a huge list of other progressive policies that Obama gets credit for -- DREAM act, universal pre-K, etc.

What you keep ignoring is that Clinton passed an actual Republican plan -- a plan that Republicans actively supported, as opposed to a plan that shared some common elements with previous Republican ideas, but which Republicans universally opposed -- on welfare reform. And the bill that Clinton passed actually reduced the safety net, unlike Obama's "Republican" plan which expanded it more than anything in the last 40-50 years.

--No, sorry. He raised tax cuts on the wealthy, and he gets credit for it. Your speculation about his motives is meaningless.

--Hard or not, he got out if Iraq. He gets credit for what he did.

--He still gets credit for preventing a second great depression and saving the auto industry.

Again, you ignore the fact that Clinton actually passed major conservative legislation -- welfare reform and financial deregulation. This isn't cherry-picking, those are major parts of his legacy. Obama hasn't. There is good reason for considering Clinton to be a centrist/conservative Democrat. But not Obama.

What's happening here is that you are just trying to make excuses as to why Obama shouldn't get credit for all of the good things he did. At some point, you need to just quit with the excuses, and recognize that, yes, Obama has pushed through a lot of progressive changes.

[Dawgs]

98. Nope. It's cherry-picking.

- You didn't pick the NSA, drone strikes, and expanded war in Afghanistan. You did pick ending the war in Iraq. That's cherry picking.

- It's possible that Krugman is wrong, no?

- So you do admit that you cherry picked. Thanks.

- But he didn't raise taxes on the wealthy until he was pushed to do it. That's a fact, not speculation.

- Fine, he gets credit for doing something that any other Democrat would have done. Low bar is still a bar, right?

- Apples to Oranges when comparing one president to another.

- Yes, Clinton was no great progressive. Nothing you can say will make me believe Obama isn't just as bad.

Answer these questions. Is Obamacare progressive? Is the NSA program progressive? How about NAFTA/TPP? How about record deportations? How about laughing at progressives that wanted to legalize marijuana? Are those things progressive? What about Summers and Geitner? Progressive? I could go on and on. Is that a lot? Because I'm trying to find "a lot of progressive changes", and the only things on your list that are progressive really aren't. There just things that ANY DEMOCRAT would do.

[geretogo]

65. It does not matter who is president , the Fascist Corporate State will run of , by , and for the

Ruling class as always .

[Nye Bevan]

67. I'm pretty sure that Obama has signed more free-trade agreements than Clinton did.

And Obama has brought the top rate of tax back up to the Clinton-era level, but no higher.

I would say that economically, Obama is pretty much at the same point on the spectrum as Clinton. (I don't see Obama fighting very hard to undo Clinton's welfare reforms, either). Socially, Obama today is to the left of where Clinton was during his presidency, but a lot of that is because the country has become more progressive generally with the passage of time. It wasn't that long ago that Obama's position on marriage equality was that "marriage is between a man and a woman because God is in the mix".

[m-lekktor]

68. from where i sit they are both conservative DEMS

so it is just splitting hairs claiming one is more or less this or that than the other. I could go to the website obamatheconservative.com and use it to compile a list that would dwarf your list of accomplishments but why bother, it is too late at this point.

[NCTraveler]

70. I had no clue Obama and Clinton were going head to head.

I don't buy into what you are selling, but I also don't see a consumer base for your product.

[Jemon]

73. Obamacare= Hillary's health plan that Bill helped create

Obama pretended he didn't want a mandate during the campaign, when in fact he wanted one, and got it. It's what Hillary wanted. And how do you know that Obama's DADT wasnt a result of the 1990's being a time when pro-gay legislation was not yet safe? Progress takes time and Obama may or may not have repealed DADT had he been old enough to be a President when Bill Clinton was President.

[Dawgs]

79. Love how the OP uses Obamacare for Obama, but not Hillarycare for Bill.

Only difference is Obama was able to get his passed with large majorities, while Bill was not.

I guess only if something passes does it count for or against your progressive creds.

[DanTex]

110. Like I said above, if we count things that don't pass...

then Obama gets credit for the public option, expanding Medicaid in all states, universal pre-K funded by taxes on the wealthy, the DREAM act, the Buffett Rule on tax deductions, raising the minimum wage, large investments in infrastructure and science and technology, etc.

I actually think it's a fair point that Clinton tried to pass a healthcare bill. Obama still comes out well to the left of Clinton, due to the things I listed above and more.

What's truly ROFL-worthy is that the anti-Obama crusaders all of a sudden, in this thread, think that presidents should get credit for things that don't pass.

[Spider Jerusalem]

76. And they're both to the right of Nixon (n/t)

[Demo_Chris]

80. Obama is hardly to the left of Bush. nt

[NCTraveler]

87. Most people familiar with Obama, Clinton, history, and the present,.....

Fully understand that they are two peas in a pod.

[DanTex]

88. I get that a lot of people think that, but it's not factual.

As pointed out in the OP, policy-wise, domestically at least, they are very different.

[NCTraveler]

90. The op is so limited on information that it, in itself, does not make a valid arguement.

For starters, you put Obamacare in there. Once again, knowledgeable people know that Obamacare is Hillarycare. Really such limited difference that it is pretty much insignificant. The Big Dog was completely behind Hillarycare. Therefore, you are making the claim that passing legislation itself is progressive. Clearly a flawed argument. Also, Has Obama fought to do away with NAFTA?

Two peas in a pod. Throwing a couple of things out there and hoping they stick might be factual, but a coherent argument they do not make.

[DanTex]

93. Any list of Obama's legislative achievements has to include Obamacare.

The OP isn't "throwing a couple of things out there", it is a list of the primary policies enacted by both presidents.

Sure, I'll give Bill credit for trying healthcare reform, although there's something to be said about actually getting it done. And, yes, both of them are pro free trade, on that front they are similar.

But Clinton signed the GOP welfare reform bill, and he pushed financial deregulation. Obama improved the safety net, Clinton reduced it. Obama has increased financial regulation, Clinton deregulated. So the "two peas in a pod" argument clearly doesn't hold water. On some issues, sure, but overall, no.

[Enthusiast]

89. Completely unrecommended

[ProSense]

92. Well,

"Obama is well to the left of Bill Clinton."

...the facts don't lie. People may or may not want to admit it, but Clinton pushed the country rightward with everything from DADT to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Enron loophole.

The facts are that Obama's Presidency brought the biggest expansion of health care in 100 years (yes, it affected every population, Medicaid and Medicare recipients and all Americans). There has been a significant shift in drug and sentencing policies. The repeal of DADT and massive progress on marriage equality and gay rights is being made. The NLRB has been revitalized. The CFPB has been implemented and energized. The strongest financial regulatory rules in decades are being written and implemented. Climate change is in focus, the EPA is reinvigorated and green energy initiatives are being funded like never before. There is diplomacy with Iran. Being anti-war is no longer a marginalized position (see the early 2000s). Inequality is in sharper focus than ever before. The Democratic Party has moved left, with liberals replacing moderates as the dominent bloc.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

Presidential Proclamation -- National Foster Care Month, 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024910923

Gallup: Uninsured rate lowest since 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/05/1296975/-Gallup-Uninsured-rate-lowest-since-nbsp-2008

Change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024781130

That is what a transformational Presidency looks like.

Originally posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024914844#post51

[DanTex]

111. Good post.

While I would stop short of calling Obama's presidency "transformational", I certainly think he did a lot of good, and his shortcomings are mostly due to intense GOP opposition.

What this OP has really brought to light is the intensity and irrationality of the anti-Obama sentiments here. I honestly thought we could all agree that, as disappointed as some people are with Obama, Clinton's presidency was obviously more conservative. I mean, he was the one who drove deregulation of the financial markets! How do people not know this?

[Vattel]

95. Obama has proven to be more of a militarist and more anti-Bill-of-Rights.

In terms of militarism, Obama wanted to leave troops in Iraq but failed to do so, he expanded the war in Afghanistan (before he reduced it), got us involved militarily in Pakistan in a big way, he got us involved in Libya, and he wanted to bomb the hell out of Syria but luckily was stopped from doing so by good luck. Obama has also been worse in terms of border enforcement issues than Clinton and worse in terms of executive power issues. Clinton tried but failed to get universal healthcare, and he moved the ball forward on LGBT rights as far as he could. And Clinton did more for the poor in the USA with his EIC expansion than anything Obama has done except maybe Obamacare. Clinton also managed to raise the minimum wage. So I guess I think that on balance they are about the same.

[hobbit709]

96. Big deal. I consider them both right of center.

[otherone]

100. But Bill Clinton is left of Bill Clinton now..

I think that the big dog has 'evolved' on the drug war, for instance..

[vi5]

102. Congress passed most of those things

Remember, Obama doesn't pass laws right? Isn't that what we're told?

If he doesn't deserve blame for the bad stuff Congress does or doesn't do then he shouldn't get credit. Can't have it both ways.

[Doctor_J]

105. No

Can we at least agree on that?

No. He is far to the right of Reagan. He has at least three times offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits, something Reagan wouldn't even touch.

And I'm not cherry-picking here.

Yes you are. Obamacare is not a step toward SP. It is a step away from SP. It set the movement for actual HC back at least twenty years, while guaranteeing Big Insurance one trillion dollars every two years. Also they are going to get that trillion dollars from working class Americans with employer-provided insurance. It is a textbook example of Turd Way policy.

He is also going to enact TPP, called "NAFTA on steroids". He has increased domestic spying and extraordinary rendition. His SecED is deliberately trying to destroy public schools. They're basically trying to make our schools just like our health care - worst quality in the world, most expensive to the consumer, with billions of tax dollars going to the Bush family and others in the 1%.

Congrats on your vanity post getting dozens of rec's, but you should stop making shit up. Or post it in the BOG where more discerning Dems have to leave it alone.

[AgingAmerican]

109. Absolute nonsense

nt