It needs to be said: Thinking we can get an agenda passed with a 50%+1 presidency is moronic

[Perky]

We are in our third decades of brutal wedge/vilification/we hate the other guys politics. It has accomplished squat, zilch, nada. Why would we want more of the same?


Look it would be nice to think that a President can just will healthcare reform into being. but it is imbecilic to think it will actually happen that way. To move key agenda legislation along the process you need:

Political will
An electoral mandate
Coattails
and legislation that will get some GOPers on board. If you do not think that is true, you have no idea how the levers of govenment work and your brain has likely been addled by eight years of the Unitary Executive. You need at least 60 votes in the US Senate or you get nothing done.

That requires political skills and the ability to cross over the aisle on key points.

Again the politics of the last last two decades plus have gotten us nowhere.

Thinking you can ram through legislation without some republican support is truly Rovian and is just stupid stupid stupid.

It may "water down" legislation. It may be an irritant. But we are not talking here about scoring points in MSM or with the base. A president is supposed to represent all Americans...

People who think Hillary Clinton has the political skills, the resume, or the ability to galvanize the American people have their heads in the sand.


Put another way. Hillary Clinton might win the nomination and the presidency. but she need a mandate to brings the troops home. She can't just place an order. It has to be funded. We need a veto-proof majority in the Senate that might require 4 or 5 republicans. With Obama that might mean only two or three Republicans because he may have longer coattails and more of mandate.

It will be a waste of yet another four years.


Yes she can win and likely will win against McCain, but not with the momentum, mandate, message or coattails Obama could.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Been there, haven't done that

But why let historical fact get in the way of a good Obama hate-on?

[Perky]

2. I appreciate the kick regardless

[BeyondGeography]

3. They're quiet about this

Too busy lisening to that old Talking Heads Album, I guess.

[Perky]

6. They have no response because there is none.

All that matter to them is getting elected...Its a very myopic view.

[bluerum]

4. What makes you think repukes in the senate/house are as easily swayed

as the public at large?

Unless you kick their ass into submission you will have gridlocked government.

We need majorities, plain and simple.

[Perky]

9. Of course we need majorities and the bigger the better. but

a lack of any bipartixanship gets us no where. If we want to change the tone in Washington and get thing done...we have to reach across the aisle.

[bluerum]

28. Kind of like, now? It is working just fine eh? Look at the last 8 years.

[Perky]

30. The last 8 years have been hardly bipartisan

Not the eight years prior.

[bluerum]

33. How about since Ronnie Raygun was elected?

[onehandle]

5. Edwards had the longest coattails.

We will win the Presidency. I wanted a clear majority in Congress.

Not sure we'll have it now.

[mmonk]

7. Yeah, look at bush.

[riverwalker]

8. well said

with Clinton, it's another 4-8 years of fighting, bickering, nothing changes.
With Obama, we can get busy.

[joeybee12]

11. Yeah, he'll transcend politics...

...other people have promised that and haven't delivered because the nature of politics doesn't allow it...nor does human nature...the beliued that somehow everything will change if BO gets in is lunacy.

[Perky]

14. I never suggested that,

I only suggested that it willnot change if Hillary gets in.

[Apollo11]

10. Don't you mean "get an agenda passed"?

[Perky]

15. yep thanks

[paulk]

12. this notion that Obama is somehow magically going to change

Washington through the force of his personality and personal charisma is beyond naive.

[Perky]

13. I never suggested that,

It still take hard work and compromise every step of the way. the Knock was against those who think that it doesn't

[paulk]

21. well, what you did suggest was so absurd -

that Hillary couldn't do the things you mentioned

that I assumed, by inference, you felt Obama could.

[Perky]

25. How about responding to the substance of what I did post rather than trying to misdirect.

[paulk]

27. I don't think there is any substance

it's just another anti-Hillary hit piece.

One of an endless stream of them, based on an opinion that is based in a POV so partisan as to be worthless.

What's this 50+1 thing? That's something you made up. You're basing your whole argument on something you made up.

[dsc]

16. that just isn't true

just look at the current administration. I certainly won't say it has been a positive effect but you can't say they haven't gotten anything done.

[Perky]

18. No significant domestic legislation

this term. Last erms it was tax cuts for the rich and Prescritiption benefits for seniors.....
Immigration nada
Social security Nada

[dsc]

19. first term

major tax cuts, major education reform, this term two supreme court justices, some more tax cuts, both terms unprecedented accumulation of power to spy on us, refuse to let Congress have oversight, and don't forget the war.

[Perky]

20. The otghes usupprt was more bipartisan

especialy the war... where he got....wait for it.....Hillary's support.

[dsc]

23. he got elected with a MINORITY

of the voters.

[ShortnFiery]

17. OBAMA, not HRC is the one who can bring in Independents and *some* Republicans ...

We should rally! I'm so damn tired of all this sick-minded swiftboating and "the politics of fear" as well as "divide and conquer." I'm just SICK OF IT! :puke:

[dpbrown]

22. How did FDR do it? They hated him and he relished it

I don't believe Sen. Clinton is all that problematic, and I certainly don't think we need to reach out to the Republicans any more than they reached out to the Democrats while the Republicans controlled the Congress.

[Perky]

24. He got a huge electoral mandate.

SOmething that Hillary will never ever get.

[dpbrown]

35. Actually, he was in such electoral danger he had to co-opt part of the Socialist platform

Because the socialists were much more in vogue then. Sixty-plus years of commie-bashing has put in such a dent that the candidates continually self-delude themselves into preaching toward some mythical middle ground.

We'd be a lot better off if the candidates embraced populism wholeheartedly instead of sucking up to the Reagan government-destroyers.

[HeraldSquare212]

26. especially without long coattails

With 3 Reps retiring from the House of Representatives, this is a good chance to get a lot of Dems in there.

[Perky]

29. I assume you meant 30 but you said 3 GOP House members

I think the number is currently 29

[kentuck]

31. There was a word for it...

They called it triangulation. Play both sides against the middle..

[jackson_dem]

32. Why doesn't Obama prove he can build large majorities by passing a real bill in the senate?

He hasn't proven one of his biggest claims. With Obama you don't get 50+1. You get 47...

[Perky]

34. Ummm the Senate ethics legislation?

Obama has proven he can be a consensus builder in the Illinoi Senate and the US Senate.

what has Hillary gotten through in her first eight years?

[FrenchieCat]

36. Of course it is!

[DDQ]

37. You managed to use the words moronic imbecilic Rovian stupid

stupid stupid and heads in the sand. All in one post.

I am sick of your anti Hillary rhetoric.

[Perky]

38. That does not mea I am wrong

convince me otherwise.

[Perry Logan]

39. If you have some free time, check out her record. Looks pretty good.