Transformational figures in American history were partisan, rigidly ideological and combatative

[ruggerson]

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan, who was transformational in the wrong direction.

Unity, peace seeking, bipartisan sounding candidates turned out to be the Woodrow Wilsons, the Eisenhowers and, yes, Bill Clinton.

Hillary is telling us that, unlike her husband, she aspires to be a confrontational, divisive (and hopefully successful) change agent like FDR.

Barack is telling us that he aspires to incremental change through bipartisan unity.

They are both legitimate ways of governing.

I happen to vastly prefer the kind of leadership style Hillary is offering us, largely because history shows us it is far more effective.

Instead of reaching out to our ideological opponents, we need to legislatively outmaneuver and squash both them and the decades of horror they have brought to our country.

[cliffordu]

1. I don't know how you can qualify all that stuff you said.

I think 'transformational' is a nice word, though.

[anigbrowl]

2. You forgot Bush 43. He fits your description to a T.

I'm minded to offer some other examples of where your philosophy is adrift as well, but why not start with the current incumbent.

[ruggerson]

3. You're absolutely correct

he is a failed transformer. (thankfully)

[Mooney]

7. I don't think he failed at all.

He's dumbed down our politics to Jerry Springer level and made a fortune for himself in the process.

[ruggerson]

8. He failed

in that his policies have not succeeded and he is leaving office universally despised.

[Mooney]

14. I don't think he ever cared about those things at all.

I really believe that his whole agenda has been about nothing so much as war profiteering and creating as much taxpayer-subsidized corporate welfare as possible. And he certainly knocked those two things out of the ballpark.

[On the Road]

4. That is an Interesting Argument

However, I see that reflected in their styles more than their proposals.

[ruggerson]

5. The Bill Cinton/Eisenhower/Wilson paradigm

is the "co opting" President. They seek to take elements of the opposing party's agenda and incorporate it into their agenda. Nixon, though he was clearly divisive, also ogoverned as a classic co-optor. He went to China, created Food Stamps and brought about Wage and Price controls. Clinton, of course, fought for welfare reform. Co optors are usually re elected handily.

[On the Road]

20. I See Both Obama and Clinton as Co-Opters

perhaps in different ways. Clinton I think has just been in a position of power for the last 15 years. Obama seems to feel the need to bolster his credibility on economic and defense by adopting "sensible" Republican talking points. I am hoping that upon being elected, Obama will govern more with his heart and instincts, but who knows? Candidates can surprise you.

[Umbram]

6. deleted - redundant. (nt)

[Bicoastal]

9. If FDR was so partisan and divisive...

...why did he place Republicans into his cabinet, something Barack Obama has been criticized for saying he'd do?

[JVS]

19. FDR was only divisive because after winning his 3rd term in 1940, the republicans thought they'd...

never be rid of him.

[anonymous171]

10. Bump B/C this is the kind of well thought out discourse that has become rare in the GD-P

Thanks for the post! :hi:

[ruggerson]

15. thanks

for the response. It's a point I've made before, but I wanted to reiterate.

[PerfectSage]

11. So the last confrontational, divisive president was clusterfuck in chief.

Nice try. I ain't buying your BS arguement. Hillary's leadership style is: "I hold all decision making and authority in my hands and my top handful of aides". Fuck Hillary and her "high need for power on Maslow's hierarchy of needs".

I only have an infinite amount of contempt for politicians so blatantly retarded like clusterfuck in chief and Hillary.

<SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr>

[Political Heretic]

12. Times change.

[ruggerson]

16. History repeats itself

[Political Heretic]

17. Not really.

[intaglio]

13. What a pity HRC doesn't fit this description

she advocates for McCain and has no ideology that I can perceive.

But you run with the ball a while - then go home and have your afternoon nap.

[JVS]

18. She's had 8 years in the senate to show ideological rigor. She hasn't.

Just because the republicans never liked her, doesn't mean she does us any good. She manages to be divisive without promoting ideology. It's all just personal bullshit between her and the repubs.