This is not 1995

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

For all his faults Bill Clinton was a brilliant politician—best I've seen. So it makes sense to borrow from the Clinton playbook in the abstract.

But that playbook was a product of its time and circumstances.

What we are seeing and hearing today is a WH in disarray grabbing at everything Clinton did after the Republicans took congress in 1994. A blizzard of tiny but positive sounding programs (we are doing stuff!) mixed with capitulation on the legitimacy of Republican views that poll well but are no more factually valid than flat-earth thinking.

Message: "I get it!"

Is there anything different between 1995 and now?

Well... when Clinton was fighting to assert his ongoing relevance we were at the beginning of the most explosive economic expansion since WWII. The nation was not in any particular crisis.

Today we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes which has and continues to disrupt not only current conditions but the rational expectations of our entire standard of living going forward.

And since 1995 we went through 8 years of proto-fascist rule that forever changed, or should have changed, how all Americans view government.

And the Republicans held the House until 2006, doing all sorts of mischief that's now law.

And the Republican Party has degenerated to the point where the mid-point of compromise with Republicans isn't center-right, it is nut-right-lite

Sorry... this ain't 1995. Different circumstances, different history, different stakes.


The "small ball" triangulation will not calm the waters, it will provoke further frustration and cynicism. The nation is in crisis. Bold and unapologetic is the only way to go.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes. It's amazing Bubba did as much good as he did considering Conserv. Dems in Congress.

But his effort to keep the presidency 'relevant' made him sign onto things he should not have done, even if they would have passed anyway.

In many ways, Sam Nunn's blocking the door on gays in the military is akin to Harry Reid's "I don't work for him," in showing that Dems don't defer to their own. Both sent the wrong signal early.

[kenfrequed]

3. sure..

Good things like NAFTA (actually 1994) and The end of Welfare and big government as we know it.

[jobycom]

9. Fuck that noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995

If it weren't for Clinton, we'd all be supporting Sarah Palin as the liberal candidate. Best goddamned president since FDR. Gingrich swore he would roll the nation back to pre-FDR levels, and the only thing that stopped that was Clinton. The things he gave up were lost anyway. The things he saved were more than we would have gotten under any other liberal president.

[kenfrequed]

17. Uhm...

So the defense of Clinton is that he slowed the roll back on the new deal? He slowed it down? He stopped Gingrich? Remind me, how many provisions on the 'Contract on America' were passed?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

20. Most favored trading status to China, DOMA, DADT all good stuff.

To anyone holding up Billy Bob as a favorable comparison to Obama can go fuck yourselves.

[kenfrequed]

23. Agreed.

I hope Obama doesn't fold that direction when all is said and done.

[inthebrain]

2. THey are borrowing from Bubba who lost nearly every state legislature

that came up for election under his watch.

Not to mention the senate.

[jobycom]

4. Oh yeah, and we have a majority in Congress, and they don't have Newt Gingrich.

Clinton in 95 was facing a conservative nation with an ultra-conservative Speaker who had just performed an unprecedented Congressional revolution. Gingrich's sworn goal was to turn back America to "pre-FDR" levels. He got that bill rammed through Congress, too.

The ONLY reason he didn't win was Clinton. The only reason we aren't back in the Stone Ages and thoroughly under ultra-conservative rule now is because of Clinton. (btw, fuck Nader).

Obama doesn't have anyone that powerful opposing him. He should be the ram, not the whatever it is that gets ramrodded. Dude needs to learn his job faster. He's playing chess during a boxing match.

[zbdent]

5. there was something like a possible "liberal media" at the time ...

but then, they were fascinated by Whitewater ... and chasing after anything with a vagina claiming it slept with Bill Clinton ...

[jobycom]

10. Liberal my ass.

Clinton couldn't buy a favorable headline. He'd save the government, and the headlines would be about his penis. He'd stop a major terrorist attack, and the headlines would be that he was trying to distract from the problems his penis caused. He tried to kill Bin Laden and the headlines were "Bill Clinton attacks innocent businessman to distract America from his problems."

Then of course when Bin Laden finally got one of his attacks through, under Bush, the media screamed "Why didn't Bill Clinton try to stop this guy?!"

If the media had been as nice to Clinton as to Reagan, either Bush, or even Obama, maybe we'd have gotten even more done. That was the right-wing media in all its glory.

[zbdent]

11. that's why I always put "liberal media" in quotes ...

it's alleged, without a shred of evidence to back it up ...

Why else would Sarah Palin be given softball questions in her media debut? And she still f*cked it up ...

[Drunken Irishman]

12. The media was far better, though.

For starters, FOX News had yet to explode onto the scene. It was pretty much CNN and MSNBC a very distant second.

The network newses weren't nearly as bad.

And the internet? Well it wasn't in as many households as it is today.

I read an article about the 1995 airing of a Simpsons episode titled Who Shot Mr. Burns and its use of the internet to try and establish the shooter.

They said there was roughly 500,000 visitors to the website Springfield.com throughout the summer of 1995.

500,000. That's a lot. Right?

No.

I bet today, that site would get that many in maybe a day.

To compare - Perez Hilton claims he gets 7 million hits a day. SEVEN MILLION. And I doubt his blog is even at the top in that regard.

Now the internet dominates political discussion. It's far easier to spread lies and anti-president rally locations than in 1995. In 1995, most things still relied on word of mouth and could take days to hit the average American.

Today, if it isn't aired by CNN/MSNBC/FOX, it's picked up by a blog and shared to millions just like that *snaps for your pleasure. ;)*.

[jobycom]

15. yeah, it's worse now. They don't even pretend to be objective anymore.

News now unashamedly tries to mimic Rush Limbaugh and the National Enquirer. A story's relevance is related only to whether it supports the network's political ideology and/or whether it will shock viewers into watching more. Stories are edited to create controversy. Clearcut factual stories are avoided, or are edited to make them seem controversial. Except political stories, where all detail is left out and only the angry reactions of both sides are reported, completely out of context.

It's not even more biased these days, it's just completely useless.

Back then the RNC used to send out pamphlets and flyers, distributed through churches and gun stores and other small networks. They also had web rings to distribute these "stories they won't tell you" emails, and they would print them out in churches and hand them around. Even in 2000, that's largely how Bush trashed McCain in South Carolina's primary.

I once had a flyer a friend of mine got from a shooting range run by a notorious paranoid survivalist here in Austin. The flyer predicted the end of America in, I think, 1997, after the rigged election reinstalled Clinton. It talked about secret codes on the backs of stop signs to direct Belgian troops in their takeover of America, with Clinton's complicity and assistance (They always think the Democrats are going to turn the country over to some enemy--with Obama it's Islam, with Clinton it was the UN).

The pamphlet listed half a dozen hot spots where troops or equipment were being stored, and troops were being trained. One of those was centered over my parents' house. There was a neighbor who collected old USSR military vehicles--he had bought a whole load of them at auction, and stored them on his land. Everyone knew they were there--they were sitting on rotting tires, rusting out, clearly useless to anyone. But that didn't stop the rumors.

I read decades later that Timothy McVeigh had actually visited that place. He admitted during his testimony that he had heard the rumor, and had driven to Mississippi just to check it out. He jumped the guy's fence and wandered around, and quickly realized the vehicles were inoperable.

What pisses me off is that he believed all these things enough to slaughter almost two hundred people.

Anyway. :) Remind me to tell you how my mom works for the CIA one day. :)

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Interesting stuff.

It's scary to think how this crap becomes more mainstream today because of the internet. You're right, back then it was all whispers and sent via lame-ass flyers and newsletters. Today, it's open for anyone to read. Not just those people it's targeting.

It's the same shit you see with the birthers. I'm appalled at how many 'mainstream' idiots on the internet latch onto that crap. It's embarrassing.

And yes...tell me about your mom & the CIA. Sounds interesting. :D

[jobycom]

18. Getting it more out in the open on the Internet makes it easier to expose, at least.

Back then people who got these flyers were sure they had secret information from the Resistance. Now it can be more easily exposed as a hoax.

Okay, my mother shot Kennedy, I believe. I started this as a counter to conspiracy theories, but the more I dug, the more concerned I became. First, she used to date a Cuban who left to take part in the Revolution--she claims she's not sure which side, but does it really matter?

And, she's from New Orleans--I should have started with that. She grew up a couple of blocks from where Oswald lived in New Orleans, on Magazine Street, and no doubt her Cuban connection brought her into contact with Oswald, though she denies it.

What's more, her father was an avowed anarchist who hated Kennedy--he hated all politicians. Years of indoctrination could not have left her unaffected. Then there was her sister, who moved away at 14 to become a nun, then left the convent for a commission in the US Army, then left the army to become a nurse, then a professor, all the while rising to Colonel in the US Army Reserves. Oh yeah, she's lesbian, too, and managed to marry her lifetime partner--who I always think of as my aunt, no matter the legal status--before Prop 8 was passed. I don't think she's connected. I just think she's way cool. :)

So Mom then meets and marries my father after her Cuban boyfriend returned to Cuba to fight. My dad seems innocent enough, but is he? His father was a Mason--actually he worked as an engineer in the Masonic Lodge in New Orleans, but that was just a cover. He must have been highly placed, because I can find no evidence he wasn't.

Most importantly, like George HW Bush, my mother claims she cannot remember where she was when Kennedy was shot. I mean, come on, Mom, could you be more obvious?

Afterwards, it was clear my parents were being rewarded. My father got a job with Zapata Exploration--the oil company George HW Bush founded, that is so widely reputed to be a CIA front. My mother went to work for the US Census Bureau--a job that rewarded her well and allowed her to visit people in secret as part of her job.

And of course there is the whole McVeigh connection. I mean, what are the odds that A) she dated a rebel from Cuba, B) she married a Mason from New Orleans, C) they would both get jobs connected to George HW Bush, D) she lived blocks from Oswald while he was battling the Cuban element in New Orleans, and E) she would then move right into the center of Ground Zero for the UN takeover of America?

And of course, one of her sons (me) later got a job with former US Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was not only a close friend of Kennedy's but was also in the motorcade when JFK was shot. Further, Yarborough was sitting next to LBJ, and had evidence that LBJ lied to the Warren Commission (And I'm one of only a handful of people who knows it. :) ) So, was that job hush money? The son (me) claims he just answered an ad posted on the bulletin board at his grad school building, but how can he prove that?

Anyway, I'm waiting until she dies to write the book. I could write it while she's alive, but then she could refute it.

[depakid]

21. Objective? Hell, they make no pretense about even telling the truth anymore

Dishonesty is purposefully rewarded with 7 figure paychecks- and every issue is treated as if it were a drive in a high school football game.

[tavalon]

6. Yep, we need another FDR and were getting another Bill Clinton

And Obama is too fucking smart to be acting this dumb. I cannot figure it out or maybe I'm willfully not wanting to figure it out.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I think Obama is doing okay for himself

The biggest lesson of the 1990s is that a Dem can get re-elected President when rabid pugs control congress.

I think the approach we are seeing from Obama is calculated to win in 2012 by throwing the dead-wood (Democratic Party) over the side of the leaking boat.

The Presidency is important so if we had an iron-clad deal with God to demolish what was a resurgent majority party only a year ago in exchange for keeping the WH in 2012 I'd have to at least look at the deal.

But there is no guarantee that clowning the Party in 2010 will win in 2012.

We'll see.

[Midwestern Democrat]

22. If that's Obama's plan, he can count me out - I would take control of

congress any day over an impotent Democratic president capitulating to a Republican congress. A Democratic congress can at least stop the worst elements of the Republican agenda. I would have gladly sacrificed Clinton's second term in exchange for keeping congress in '94 - and I feel the exact same about Obama's second term, as well.

[Captain Hilts]

19. The pressures on Obama a similar to those on Clinton. nt

[bertman]

8. "Bold and unapologetic" does not sound like this President. Sorry to say. More like

"overly cautious and wanting to please everyone" so far.

[TexasObserver]

13. Agreed. President Obama needs a plan for NOW.

If our party doesn't get back to the agenda it sold the public to win in 2006 and 2008, we are going to lose the gains we made those years, and lose them in 2010.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Thats where the current administration went right off course

by thinking there was a need to reuse that 90's playbook or that the current situations call for it.

The people, even those that rah rah the loudest fo' 'Murika, know we are chock full of broken systems and that we are and will be basically fucked until we actually and comprehensively deal with them.

The President hopefully has the reserve of good will, trust, and hope from the American people and the will within himself to do what must be done which is to take the lead on the huge undertakings it will take to repair, update, or yes, Virginia...replace the broken institutions and ways of doing things so that we can have real prosperity and opportunity.

Anything we do by playing around the edges is building on a foundation of sand.

It is one of the greatest hopes of my life that our President will bring the real change we can believe in, which can't help but to be to stop bullshitting.

Admitting problems, digging for core causes, and putting forth solutions that always at least address them and hopefully go a long way toward solving those root problems is the real change we can believe in folks.

Isn't that the one thing everybody refuses to give a go? Lets do something way out there and tell the truth and actually apply solutions that have a chance to fix what is actually breaking whichever system is in play.