Why is the Left of 2010 harder on President Obama than the left of 1994 was on President Clinton?

[Politics_Guy25]

It's really quite astonishing. In September 1994, Clinton's health care effort had failed catastrophically, NAFTA had just been passed, Haiti had just been invaded, GAAT was being signed, carnage was being allowed to happen in the former Yugsolavia unimpeded, etc., but the democratic party was as united as it had been since Roosevelt. There was not even the SLIGHTEST hint of a primary challenge to WJC in 1994 compared to the almost continuous talk of one against President Obama that started just 6 months into his presidency.

About the only progressive accomplishment of WJC's was the family and medical leave act.

Fast forward to 2010 and the left is in an uproar and furious beyond all imagination. Why? Who knows? We just passed the closest thing to universal health care in 50 years through the Affordable Health Care Act, sweeping financial reform was passed the likes of which hasn't been implemented since FDR, Lily Ledbetter was passed, DADT is in the process of being repealed whereas President Clinton was signing the DOMA at around this time (1996 to be precise),the war in Iraq is being wound down, a key progressive demand, etc, etc.

However, the left of 1994 didn't say a word and the words 'primary him" were never once uttered. Sure, WJC's re-election prospects looked bleak in 1994 but a PRIMARY?, never mentioned.

W.H. Press Secretary Gibbs and others in the W.H. are utterly astonished at the lack of respect for the most sweeping progressive reforms passed since FDR and have said as much.

I can think of two reasons why the left is so much harder on Obama than Clinton. One is since the president is dealing today with an economic crisis the likes of which has rarely been seen but there's also another elephant in the room I think but I won't dare mention it in this post because I know this is already inflammatory enough-and no the elephant I'm thinking of has nothing to do with the HRC-BHO primary.

I know this will spark debate but I think that others on the left here need a bit of a jolt.

IMPORTANT EDIT: I love President Clinton dearly and until President Obama, he was my favourite president ever. The point of this post is why would the left be in love with him in 1994 but not in love with President Obama in 2010 when PO is the more progressive of the two. WJC did many good things as well but the left should have been equally as upset with WJC in 1994 but was not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. No internet in 1994

Harder to anonymously attack anyone.

[Capn Sunshine]

86. There it is.

That and the collusion of media producing a daily onslaught of real and imagined vagaries of the Administration. It used to be a fringe operation funded by shadowy billionaires conspired to bring down the Clintons.

Now its a right wing mainstream operation funded by billionaires and corporations with a demonstrated infiltration into the opposition. Like here at DU.

[boppers]

106. Wow, that was my first response, too.

...and you had it in the first post. Well done.

[newthinking]

114. Naw, the situation is far more critical and serious.

The left waited and waited but they always figured they live to fight another day. There were JOBS during Clinton's run. Social Security was not under fire. People had hope they could save and make it.

Completely different now. Facism has reared it's ugly head and there is little hope for a future with the "status quo". The two periods are completely incomparable.

[Mimosa]

130. *ding ding ding* for 'no internet in 1994

The internet was just starting I think.

[Ter]

136. There was an Internet in 1994

It was beautiful back then, I remember.

[boppers]

180. Yes, it existed, but it was different.

Remember life before internet advertising? Before SPAM?

A lot has changed.

[NashVegas]

161. That, And Clinton Never Palmed Himself Off As a Darling For the Left & Progressives

[Ken Burch]

164. In fact, his whole political identity was based on promising to keep the left out in the cold

Never mind that the only people who voted for him were people who would have voted for any OTHER Dem.

[niceypoo]

203. When Clinton left office his polls were at 68%

When he was being 'impeached' his approval was at 70%

Yeah, nobody liked him

[ShadowLiberal]

196. No Internet & increased political polarization the Internet causes

The Internet is one of those inventions that helps push both parties farther to the extreme in politics because of the instant communication. And when you're able to hang out with so many like minded people, it's easy for them to push each other farther in one direction politically. I've seen that myself on some issues such as abortion that I used to be more moderate on.

The Internet isn't the first invention to cause increased political polarization, the Telephone did the same thing back in the day when it was invented.

[Uzybone]

2. a big part of it is the internet

Also IMO the left was more or less dead from about 1975 to 2002.


And remember that the media is making a big deal of our "displeasure" with some of President Obamas policies. Bill Clinton was more or less was a "liberal" republican in democrats clothing, not much reason the media to highlight the lefts "dissatisfaction" when Clinton was basically carrying out GOP policies.

as for the elephant in the room, that is also a factor.

[truedelphi]

3. One and only ONE REASON - the Internet.

The political blogs and the YouTube videos bring many things to light.

If Clinton did something that was not a good idea, we didn't know all that much about it.

The only thing I knew about NAFTA was Ross Perot's mentions of a "giant sucking sound", and a book I found and read at a RW client's house.

And I didn't understand what Clinton and his buddy Rahm Emanuel were gonna do to us via the outsourcing of jobs resulting from this major piece of legislation. (Does his buddy's name ring a bell? Rahm was the architect of the wording of NAFTA - making sure that it was all as legal as the flag and mom's apple pie.) The internet was still in its infancy.

Now if a politician farts on stage, the YouTube of that fart goes viral.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politics_Guy25]

6. President Obama is about the most liberal president that the US will ever see

President Obama has pushed the envelope about as far as he possibly can to implement progressive policies and look at the enormous blowback on the right calling him Hitler II, a muslim, a communist, a socialist, etc. He must be doing something right?

As for President Clinton, I do agree, he always ran as a New Democrat.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

26. Thank you, Manny. Many on DU don't have

The history of what some of us have lived through.

I spent part of the summer of 1973 issuing price roll backs on insurance policies. I had to send out many a refund to policy holders, as Nixon had decreed that prices were out pacing a worker's take home checks, and so many thing had to be restored to 1971 levels.

Can you imagine if Obama had forced price roll backs on health insurance premiums over the last two years?

[JoePhilly]

33. So what you mean to say is that Progressivism has been beaten.

The far right wing knows how to get its vote out. They know how to craft a message. They rarely abandon their candidates.

The left has no such discipline. We spend more time fighting us, then we spend fighting them.

And that is why the left is losing ground. We are populated with a bunch of yippy dogs who exhaust themselves barking at each other while simultaneously being unable to "take the bone".

meanwhile, the GOP dobermans lick their chops waiting for the left to dismantle itself, and pass out from exhaustion.

And then they simply walk over and TAKE THE BONE.

Our internal bickering is the reason the country is moving to the right. We on the left have ADD ... and we can't stay on message for longer than the life span of the average fruit fly.

(typo)

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Are battered spouses responsible

for breaking up the marriage when they walk out?

[JoePhilly]

58. Feel free to walk anytime you want.

The GOP will treat you far better.

[MannyGoldstein]

126. All I want is Democrats

Not "Democrats".

And suggesting that DU members vote for Republicans is not the brightest thing ever.

[boppers]

Are gold diggers responsible

for breaking up the marriage when they walk out?

I would say that both battered spouses and gold diggers are responsible for "breaking up the marriage", but they do it for very different reasons.

[Number23]

56. Excellent post.

[stevenleser]

135. +10000 for the very sad but completely true assessment

"And that is why the left is losing ground. We are populated with a bunch of yippy dogs who exhaust themselves barking at each other while simultaneously being unable to "take the bone".

meanwhile, the GOP dobermans lick their chops waiting for the left to dismantle itself, and pass out from exhaustion.

And then they simply walk over and TAKE THE BONE."

That is it, in a nutshell.

[truedelphi]

143. keep smoking the whacky stuff.

Obama gave the concessions.

He handed the concessions to them on a silver platter.

Jon Stewart was about the only one to parse the heck out of Obama's limp statements about how "We don't know if we will even have a public option in the final bill to be voted on. Public option is only one tool of many tools." <circa summer 2009>

And Obama said "If we were starting from scratch, then Single Payer Universal HC would be the best and most logical solution to reform. But given that we have a system in place, then we must find a uniquely American approach to reform, one that leaves what we already have in place." <circa summer 2009)

So in other words, we need reform because the system is broken. But to be American about it (And who doesn't want to be a patriotic American, even if that usually means we get screwed royally on something that works out best for DoD or Big Industry, because we can't stop the entities that caused us to need the reform.

[freebrew]

191. +1000

That sounds correct.

[golfguru]

31. Touche n/t

[NorthCarolina]

60. Good grief, I certainly hope not. eom

[jaxx]

13. So Obama is the scapegoat?

Bad times make Obama worse, you call them both 'Reagan Republicans' but Clinton was better because we didn't know.

I'd call that sour grapes.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. How wonderfully incoherent

Cute picture, though.

[jaxx]

16. It was plenty coherent.

Using Obama as the scapegoat for all things not done to the satisfaction of the left is pure bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. So trying to slash Social Security

is just a matter of not doing things to the satisfaction of the left? How about endless wars, trillions for banks, outsourced torture and secret prisons, warrentless wiretapping, and keeping those uppity gays in their place?

[jaxx]

20. Why is it the only argument about Social Security is a what if?

Nothing has been done to 'slash' it, all we know is rumor based. One war is ending, the other will start that road next year. Trillions for banks...bushco initiated. Outsourced torture, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping...bushco column. Keeping gays in their place? Who's doing that? Certainly not Obama.

You have no argument against Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. One of us is sorely misinformed. nt

[jaxx]

22. That's true and it isn't me.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. *Trying* to slash Social Security

Are you thinking otherwise?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Am I making up that both Catfood co-chairs have tried to slash SS before?

And both are continuing to maintain that it must be cut? As have most other members of the Catfood Commission?

Am I making up that Obama has said that he won't allow SS to be privatized, but has maintained a deafening silence on whether it will be slashed?

Wake up. The thing is rigged to take more than $42,000 out of the pockets of each American 57 or younger.

[boppers]

108. Yes, you are making it up.

There is no "Catfood Commission", that's an invented propaganda phrase... unless you're willing to show me where "Catfood" was used as an official name, I'm willing to go out and a limb and say no commission ever named as such exists.

Let me guess, you think "Death Panels" is a reasonable name for a commission too, because if you make up a fake name, it's supposed to be taken seriously? You're going to go full-on-Palin on DU?

[MannyGoldstein]

113. That does not answer the question

Call it what you wish; it's packed with avowed opponents of the current Social Security benefits package.

They've said they'd like to slash benefits - why would we and Obama not believe them?

[boppers]

115. Oh, we've gone from "Catfood" to "packed" as a fear word?

Please define "packed".

80%?

90%?

8%?

What is your threshold for "packed", when it comes to participants on a commission?

Also: What are the thresholds that makes for "avowed opponents"?

[MannyGoldstein]

116. Sophomoric attempt to avoid answering the question

A reasonable definition of "packed" would be a far higher percentage of commissioners than one would find by chance. Since http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/60017">very few people are against slashing Social Security (how many do you know?), and since Obama's appointed http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/obama-packs-debt-commission-social-security-looters">a who's who of folks with a public record of wanting to slash Social Security, the thing can be considered to be packed.

OK, I've answered several questions from you, and you've not answered mine. Nothing more from me until I get an answer from you (which I don't expect).

[boppers]

151. Oooh, "slashing"! What word will be next!

FWIW, I asked ten people today if their paycheck deductions should go to the pocketbooks of the richest 1%.

All 10 said no.

I admit it's a very small sample size, but it does demonstrate that people are unhappy.

[dionysus]

65. no, it's entirely accurate.

[flamingdem]

103. Love those crabby grapes

Look it's Jane Hamster and Michael Mooran!

[yourout]

34. +1.....Agree with every point.

[dionysus]

63. reagan republicans? manny, that's juts pathetic. you can do better.

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Perhaps you can point out how I'm wrong.

Stick to specific comparisons, thanks.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politics_Guy25]

9. The danger in this

is that Carter faced an epic mess to clean up because of Nixon. The left quickly gave up on him. What did it lead to? Not a golden age of liberalism, that's for sure. The election of Reagan, the dismantling of Liberalism and the end of the New Deal. My worst fear is a repeat of that with President Palin running the new Reagan revolution. We must avoid that at all costs.

Surely, as disappointing as he was to the left, Carter was better than Reagan.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. FDR faced the most epic mess of all,

and he attacked it with gusto and gave his enemies the finger. And after the 1934 mid-term elections, only 17 Republican Senators remained.

[boppers]

109. He also put his "enemies" in concentration camps.

My annoyance of FDR hagiography is only eclipsed by my annoyance of Reagan hagiography.

[MannyGoldstein]

124. How many were tortured and/or killed?

It was a fuck up, but have some perspective!

[boppers]

154. 110,000 thrown into jail.

There wasn't a killing plan, per se, but some were killed anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#Hardship_and_material_loss

[MannyGoldstein]

156. So you're claiming that FDR was a bad president

Really?

[boppers]

157. No, I'm claiming that hagiography distorts reality.

FDR did some very great things, and some very reprehensible things. Ignoring the details on either side leads to a broken perspective.

[MannyGoldstein]

171. FDR saved the US, then saved much of the planet

I don't know what he did, or did not have to do to achieve this; all I know is that it was a miracle, and things could have turned out infinitely worse.

[CBR]

158. It was a fuck up? That's it? That is all it is worthy of -- a fuck up?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. You don't have a good grasp of history. In 1934 most Americans looked to government to help solve

the nation's problems. Since Watergate and money corruption in politics, confidence in the government declined drastically. The onslaught of conservatism and its rhetoric makes it very hard to govern. Very difficult to make difficult decisions. Case in point: no Democrat can talk about raising taxes--even if it's on the wealthy--because the Republicans are so good at this class war and divisions (primarily using race). The key to understanding how Republicans have been victorious in politics for the last 30 years has been the Southern Strategy. That means turning any government program--Social Security included--into "welfare."

You can't blame Obama for that. Hell, you cannot even blame Clinton for that.

But you can blame Democrats in general for not hitting Republicans back hard for their divisive, racial hatred. These false narratives that have existed for 3 decades. Fear, race and class animosity, exploiting religion, guns, gays...these are the elements that have led to Republican dominance at least for that past 20 years or so.

My biggest complaint with both Obama and Clinton is that they seem to have embraced some of that rhetoric. Rather than attempting to change that age-old Republican narrative that tax cuts work, that free trade works, that wars are o.k., and that the safety net should be altered, the New Democrats/DLCers have co-opted Republican-conservative rhetoric as if liberalism itself is an evil, extreme, and wrong.

At any rate, you can't compare the conditions of 1934 or 1964 or 1968 because they are totally different than what we're faced with right now!! It's unfair to hold Obama to those standards when accounting for the politics of then and now.

[MannyGoldstein]

125. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover

In the 1920s, as in our recent past, The People thought they wanted minimalist government as well. Think Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

Even FDR bought into this, making a reduction in government spending of 25% one of the planks of his 1932 presidential platform!

But, then as today, when push came to shove, people were eager for government to lend a hand. FDR got the government to lend a hand, and the Democrats enjoyed a more-or-less continuous majority in Congress for the next 62 years.

Obama is currently http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562">emulating Hoover's policies, not FDR's. Which is why we're in the predicament we're in.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

129. I agree, but only to the extent that he's bought into the "tax cuts create jobs" meme.

He has to the extent that he believes that tax cuts for small businesses would allow them to hire. I'm not sure if it will.

But, the argument is still naive because it doesn't account for the conditions in Congress. Obama is dealing with congressional Democrats who are also running scared. The president cannot get anything done when his counterparts in the Senate are scared of Republicans. Case in point: why aren't House Democrats especially running on all the legislation that was passed? Why aren't Democrats running on all the successes of this administration?

You got Democrats that simply will not vote for an additional stimulus because they are squared that Republicans will label them "tax and spend" liberals. They are more concerned with being reelected. They are not concerned with helping Obama do good public policy!

I still think Frank is being naive.

[MannyGoldstein]

138. Obama is screwed now; had a mandate when elected

Imagine: he's a black guy who got elected with a powerful mandate. He could have done almost anything when he took office, I think, but we'll never know because he never tried. Once elected, the greatest orator of our age wandered off and left "governing" to the band of Clintonites who did the same shit as last time (triangulation and gratuitous Liberal-bashing), and now the Democrats have nothing obvious to show for the last two years, working Americans have seen their lot grow increasingly worse.

We needed leadership. Instead, we got the perversely-named Democratic Leadership Council.

[Exilednight]

17. Carter wasn't disappointing to the left ...........

Congress was. Democrats in Congress openly challenged Carter. They believed his "human rights approach to foreign policy" was naiev. They also criticized him on his failure to take a "tough stand" against Iran and criticized him for not rushing in with military force to take back the US hostages.

This would of been a legitimate criticism, IF the hostages were being treated poorly. There are oral accounts given by the hostages of beatings and threats, but for the most part they were treated far better than we have treated foreign detainees.

[DURHAM D]

7. Maybe because Clinton spent a ton of political capital attempting to -

bring forward a decent health care reform bill and even more political capital on pushing for gays to serve openly in the military. His biggest enemy on both - arrogant Democratic Senators who wanted to show the hayseed he wasn't nothin'.

But those on the left (base) got what he was doing. We understood where his heart was and most importantly - we knew he was really a Democrat being pushed around by his own party's elected federal officials. We knew he was working hard. We knew he was filled with passion for what government could do. Also, he had an over-arching narrative to his Presidency - he was working for the American people. Something Obama has yet to communicate.

[Exilednight]

10. From his time of being elected, until last weekend .........

Obama has seemed to fail at communicating much of anything. Right after he took office he seemed to have become very low key in pushing for certain legislation, and downright mute on several of his major issues.

[Politics_Guy25]

11. Ummm....

Did President Obama not have these same arrogant dem senators to deal with? HE DID INDEED. Joe Lieberman anyone? Ben Nelson? Would you rather have had no health care bill passed at all than an imperfect one??

Do you seriously believe that it was the President himself that killed the public option? No, just as in Clinton's day, it was the damn senate.

Your failure to blame Clinton for the senate's mistake's but to blame Obama for his senate's mistakes is astonishing.

[Exilednight]

24. First off ........

Liebermann is no longer Democrat. He hasn't been since he lost his primary bid to a Democratic challenger in 2006. Admittedly, he does caucus with Democrats, but that is so he can keep his coveted chairmanship positions. If he began to caucus with repugs, he would be at the bottom of the totem pole and lose that coveted positions.

Second, even with the small handful of Democrats who are openly against Obama, more than 50 some odd are behind him. His failure to reign in a very small handful of Senators in order to pass key legislation has shown his inability to motivate his own party.

Third, his promise of hope and change has been an empty promise since day one. He filled over half his upper cabinet positions with beltway and Wall Street insiders.

[hollowdweller]

39. I totally vote with your analysis

Clinton pushed as far to the left as it was possible to do at that time.

He wasn't afraid to lose.

One thing Clinton was good at was finding an issue that polled well, going out and using his bully pulpit to rally the public.

Obama has often pulled back on issues the public supports like public option and really putting the screws to Wall Street.

Also Obama is a speechmaker. He presents something to you. He speaks well but has a "colder" style of delivery than Clinton. Clinton had the ability to draw you in to where it was like he was having a converaation with you where Obama more like he's lecturing you.

On the cabinet level I think Clinton had liberals like Babbit and Reich and who could forget Jocelyn Elders. Obama has basically thumbed his nose at any liberals.

Bottom line is Obama is not as good of a POLITICIAN as Clinton was so he has not helped party unity much and he really hasn't even had the power to make the people feel good about the actual great things he HAS done.

[Number23]

57. "We understood where his heart was"

So Clinton AUTOMATICALLY got the benefit of the doubt from many "leftists" regardless of the policies that he passed.

Hmmm... I wonder why Obama has not been extended that same courtesy?

[DURHAM D]

62. Clinton didn't AUTOMATICALLY get anything. He earned it.

Obama hasn't bothered. List three things Obama has done that proves to you that Obama really cares about the middle & lower class.

[Number23]

104. Your post speaks volumes. Even after passing legislation that is considered "non-progressive"

you still think that Clinton deserves and has "earned" liberal respect, even more than Obama who has passed more progressive legislation than any President in decades.

Very, very telling.

[CBR]

128. Of course... because he is from the "hard working Americans"

that are so canonized by the left. Obama is just a "latte liberal."

[dionysus]

70. it's hillarious how clinton gets a pass for signing homophobic legislation, twice, around here.

[Lilyeye]

195. Exactly. Not to mention the financial polies that happened under his watch

I like Clinton, but to sit there and attack Obama and then give Clinton a pass is ridiculous.

[Exilednight]

8. It's the economy .......

When the economy is humming along, then everyone is happy.

6 million jobs created, tax cuts for the lower and middle class, tax increases for the top 1.2%, and $600 billion in deficit reduction in just his first two years alone.

[Exilednight]

48. DOH - I meant to say that the above are Clinton's accomplishements .............

from his first two years in office.

[jgraz]

19. The left was just as hard on Clinton in 94.

We just didn't post it on internet forums where his acolytes could make lame excuses for him.

Also, Clinton didn't run on Hope and Change(tm). He ran a clearly centrist, pro-corporate campaign. We didn't like it, but at least we knew what we were getting with him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. Obama ran a basically moderate campaign as well

Some of the disappointment on the left might make more sense if he had run promising single payer health care, an end to capitalism as we know it, complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan but he didn't promise ANY of those things.

Yes, President Obama indeed ran on Hope and Change......from Bushco and eight years of Republican rule and has brought some needed changes on the aforementioned issues although he has not delivered (nor promised) as much change, apparently, as a lot of the people on the left have been demanding of him.

The level of hate and vitriol----not just criticism-------of President Obama on a Democratic-leaning website forum is pretty astounding IMHO.

:wow:

[Exilednight]

46. Totally disagree .....

HCR - The left backed Obama on HCR because we knew that single-payer was not going to make its way through Congress. The PO was the next best thing, and it had 77% approval with the public at large. We were willing to take what we could get. Face it, Obama completely failed to deliver less expensive health-care. We might be idealist, but we also live in reality.

Iraq - Everyone knew his stance on Iraq. We would have liked immediate pullout? Yes. But was going to be a reality? No. On the other hand, he did keep his promise and only missed his target date by a month. On the other hand, although combat forces will not be fighting, military contractors will. This feels like a bait and switch.

Afghanistan - I disagreed with Obama on this from the time he started campaigning, but everyone on the Democratic ticket who had a shot of winning were in the same camp.

Gitmo - Obama did promise to close gitmo within one year of taking office. Many of his supporters blame Congress, but Congress has nothing to do with it. Gitmo was opened by executive order (it was later included in legislation funding, but that has nothing to do with opening and closing) and can be closed by executive order.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. What about what he campaigned on was NOT "moderate" though?

HCR: I agree that we need to work to get a PO into law and I hope that he pushes for its eventual inclusion. It was suck-a** compromise to let it go but there didn't seem to be any other way to move it through the Senate w/o the whole thing being torpedoed by the likes of Loserman and there was still enough good stuff in it to warrant its passage IMHO.

Gitmo: I believe that his failure to get Gitmo closed had more to do with the fact that a bunch of NIMBY Congressmen, including lots of Dems refused to appropriate the necessary money to get the prisoners transferred out of Gitmo rather than his will to do it. I can't remember all of the particulars of the situation but I don't believe that President Obama is keeping it open because he wants to (or is reneging on his promise). It just hasn't happened yet-for some technical reasons, unfortunately.

[WonderGrunion]

102. Clinton ran as the "Man from Hope"

Obama was up front with what he was too. You just didn't listen.

[jgraz]

107. Obama ran as the guy who was going to change the way Washington worked.

Instead, he just played the same old games.


Or were you not listening for that part?

[boppers]

111. Some game rules can be changed. Others cannot.

The game remains the same.

He changed the game a lot, but he can't stop the game.

[jgraz]

133. Oh really. How, exactly, did he change the game?

And if you're having trouble with that: how, exactly, did he even try to change the game?

[boppers]

153. Less lobbyists in the admin.

More individual donations in the campaign than corporate donations.
More voices at the table than just those who control industries.
Bipartisanship, even at the cost of losing momentum on achieving goals.
More GLBTQ appointments than anybody else in office.

Heck, there are regular lists of accomplishments, but if you've missed those, suffice to say that this admin has moved the ball further than anybody else in the last 50 years.

[jgraz]

173. Incrementalism and self-defeating ideology

Less lobbyists in the admin

Really? Who needs lobbyists in the admin when you give away the store to scumbags like Billy Tauzin and Liz Fowler?



More individual donations in the campaign than corporate donations.

Oh yeah? How'd that work out for us? Did individual citizens get a larger voice in this administration?


More voices at the table than just those who control industries.

Oh, you mean like all those Single-Payer advocates who were part of the healthcare negotiations? Or the peace activists who were consulted before escalating Afghanistan? Or were you perhaps thinking of another non-existent group?


Bipartisanship, even at the cost of losing momentum on achieving goals

Worthless. What did that get us except crappier government and a stalled economy? Whatever happened to not negotiating with terrorists?


More GLBTQ appointments than anybody else in office.

That's pretty good. The GLBT's Obama fired from the military probably need the work. God knows they can't spend time working on their marriages.


Heck, there are regular lists of accomplishments, but if you've missed those, suffice to say that this admin has moved the ball further than anybody else in the last 50 years.

Yeah, that's total crap. You know who moved the ball? Reagan did. W did. They moved it so far to the right we can't even see the center any more. Obama is just putzing around hoping that we don't notice that he hasn't changed anything.


Want to prove me wrong? Show me ONE THING Obama has done that wouldn't have been done by any random Democrat we elected President. Cuz I can sure show you a helluva lot of things he hasn't done that would have been done by a Democrat with just the slightest bit of strength or vision.

[boppers]

176. "Show me ONE THING Obama has done that wouldn't have been done by any random Democrat"

Win a Nobel prize.

[jgraz]

177. Wow, that one sure created a lot of jobs, didn't it?

Aside from the fact that Obama didn't "do" anything to earn that prize -- and the fact that he pretty much repudiated it with his escalation of Afghanistan -- winning the prize didn't do jack shit for this country.

I'm glad that you're so proud of our President. The next time you see a fellow citizen who's unemployed or can't afford healthcare, tell them about Obama's Nobel Prize. That'll cheer them right up.

[boppers]

178. I haven't been able to afford healthcare since 1992.

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

I get them. Repeatedly. No reason, other than genetics. Painful as fuck.

With Obama, I didn't expect a savior, I expected a president.

Oh, and you might want to have a look at the criteria for a Nobel peace prize. It's awarded to someone who:
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Being at war is not a dis-qualifier.

[jgraz]

179. That's too bad. Here's something for the next time you're sick.

[boppers]

181. It also helps tide you through last month's nuclear war!

Powerful medicine, that.

[Carolina]

190. he kinda did run on hope as in

the man from HOPE and he did talk about change

[jgraz]

192. Sure, but he wasn't "Noun, verb, HOPE. Noun, verb, CHANGE"

Obama was very explicit about what he wanted to do, especially wrt dealing with lobbyists. Then, as soon as he got into office, he went back on those promises.

[jaysunb]

23. The Internets

:shrug:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tritsofme]

27. I don't buy the premise. The internet has just given this small minority a large microphone.

People aren't talking like this in any great numbers in the real world. There will be no serious primary challenge to the President, and no mainstream figures are even discussing the possibility.

Obama has 90%+ approval ratings among Democrats, the whiners are just loud.

[liberal N proud]

28. Are we sure the left that is so hard on Obama really the left?

With the modern media and the internet, anyone can pretend to be what they need to be just to generate they desired hype. Look no further than some of the rhetoric here on DU for examples of those who one would question if they were really part of the left to begin with.

[Politics_Guy25]

44. That is very true

There is a large Green party/third party contingent on DU.

[uponit7771]

140. yeap

[golfguru]

29. Unemployment rate was much lower in 1994 than 2010

[Mimosa]

131. That's the truth! n/t

[CBR]

30. The reason is obvious. nt

[impik]

148. It is. No one will ever admit it, though.

[Booster]

32. Cause things were easier during the Clinton years? I dunno.

[Vinca]

36. In 1994 health insurance actually covered stuff and was affordable.

In 2010 we have "reform" that isn't. Big insurance is enshrined, emboldened and rolling in dough. That's what this leftie is stewing about.

[OHdem10]

37. The Left was just as hard on Clinton. However, as usual the Media

ignored them. There was no internet to help get their
complaints out.

[DrToast]

38. Clinton didn't have a mandate.*

*

[Hawkowl]

40. Unemployment + Healthcare + Income distribution

These three things are catastrophically worse under Obama. Not that Obama caused these problems, but the problems' magnitude are so much greater than under Clinton. Consequently, if Obama is to succeed, he is going to need an almost unparalleled bold, aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to solving these problems.

Compromising with the rethuglicans who deliberately engineered this economic disaster isn't going to fix anything. Obama has been extraordinarily cautious considering the massive voter support he came to office with. His adherence to supply side/trickle down/tax cut solutions is disastrous.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Clinton came to office out of the shadow of the Reagan revulsion and won with like 42% of the vote

Clinton had already been a governor so you knew about what to expect, he pushed the envelop by trying to defeat the ban on gay service and was beat back by the conservadems to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his health care plan was more ambitious (note we ended up with the Dole/Gingrich counter proposal).

Information was harder to come by and much slower to get out, folks did not know what hacks his people were, much lower rebellion against the establishment due to general circumstances being less horrible as the effects of globalization, the wealth disparity, deregulation, and trickle down had no fully come down.

The fact that Clinton did get away with so much to destroy the working class and poor there is much less tolerance for corporate taint licking today, the 24 news cycle, the degradation of the media, greater desperation, and the internet takes the lid off as opposed to the more to down decimation of information.

Then there is a real mandate, the largest majorities in almost two generations (and one of the most sizable ever), and the desperate state of affairs. There just feels like there is less time on the clock for jacking around and less reason to have operation about the future without big action.

Also, we did not fight to Clinton machine to just put them in charge nor do we have the slightest interest in the bogus bipartisanship with crazy, theocratic economic royalists.

The immediate attempt to retread and refight the 90's with the same stupid fuckers that lost then and sold out America to the corporate right doesn't inspire confidence either and then there is the move of winning like no Democrat in decades only to arrive in office and move to the corporate right and stay there.

[bvar22]

42. Because we can watch in Real Time,

and have instant access to VIDEO.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[LWolf]

45. Perhaps because the left knows they were already tolerant and patient,

and lost ground because of it; perhaps because the left's goal was not to replace republicans with Democratic neoliberals, having learned something about them during the Clinton era.

[tomg]

47. as a member of the left in 1994,

I didn't hold Bill Clinton as responsible for his actions as I do President Obama now because i fucked up. I bought into the psuedo prosperity. I was so relieved to have my kids have a democratic president ( two were born in 1980, one in 1983) that i overlooked it all. i was so flipped out by loons like Newt et al that I said "anything WJC does is okay by me."

And one result is that, by not holding Clinton's feet to the fire, we had a good president - and he clearly was an okay president - who could have been a truly great president.Obama, so far, is also a good president. I don't believe he has the personal traits that hampered WJC - he has his own. But they can be just as troublesome ( i never want to hear bipartisan again).

I believe that Obama can be one of our greatest presidents, or he can be simply another mediocrity - better than average but. . . .

the problem in the op is the line "why would the left be in love with." I never loved Clinton. I liked him - still do. i believed he could have been something truly great. the problem with Clinton wasn not Clinton. it was me. i didn't hold his feet to the fire. I was bought cheaply.

I actually think more of Obama. But it is our job to have him be that best self.

edit: I added 100 years to my kids ages -

[amandabeech]

51. Clinton's personal demons were going to take him and the country down.

He is so "Adult Child of an Alcoholic" that it hurts. My therapist at the time was horrified when I told her about "The Man from Hope." She knew that his ACOA'ism would show up at the worst time, and it did. You know that he was in counseling for sexual addition back when Hilary was running for President, don't you?

He could neither keep his pants zipped or pick someone discreet, and gave the Pukes everything they needed to keep him from doing much of anything positive for some time.

[DURHAM D]

78. this post is clearly about your personal demons

oh, and some made up shit about the Clinton presidency

[amandabeech]

91. I'm not making up shit.

You just don't like what I say about Clinton.

[tomg]

185. It's funny, but we can

often look at GWB and explain - a la Stone et.al - how the Iraq war was, in some ways, George dealing with Dad. I can't tell you how often DU has seen that as part of the picture ( and legitimately so);but as soon as we turn the lense on our own people we get very weirded out. I think that you could have a very valid point vis a vis Clinton's ACOA. Frankly, I have felt this since 1993, but I was looking at the issue through a slightly different ( though allied) lense at the time. It is clearly part of the puzzle. Now, whether we need to look at Clinton now, almost 18 years later is a whole other song and dance. Personally, I think there is something in this in so far as it applies to Obama. I do see some similarities. Both need some kind of approval - although in different way and for different reasons. There is, for me, no other way to explain Obama's totally misguided attempts at bipartasinship. At least at this point ( Gingrich the other day. Jesus). Here we have the two smartest fuckers since - wh0 - Jefferson - fucking up over what seems to be bullshit.

So now we try to explain Obama.
We try 3-dimensional chess. He is so yaddah yaddah yaddah that we can't see what he is doing. That is bullshit. The guy is good. really good. But fucking God ain't that good.
We try its opposite: he is a corporatist whore. Sorry - does not work. it goes against all evidence
What we keep seeing -again and again and again - are attempts at reasonableness on his part, compromise based on the assumptions of the authenticity of others. And we find thathe keeps looking like a deer in the headlight. The options are -either we got scammed ( which I really don't believe) - or he is gettin suckered punched. And with it, us.

Sorry to go on. Just stuff I have been thinking about that your posts 9and others0 have stimulated. And as someone said maybe it is more about my stuff. but I don't think so.

[niceypoo]

202. Sounds more like your issue more than anybody else's

Your making excuses for GOP behavior in the 90s.

[boppers]

112. No, kids add 100 years to *you*

I can see why you might have been confused, though.

[tomg]

184. Very True. nt

[Cosmocat]

183. Dude ...

Saving him from the republicans is job one, but ...

[tomg]

186. I know. You're right.

Seriously. But if we can figure out how to stop Obama from falling into his own trap... (and, believe me, it won't involve a blue dress). . .it might be worth it ( although, also obviously, no one is listening to DU).

[paulk]

49. because Obama had much larger majorities in Congress

and a mandate - a majority win (rather than a plurality like Clinton) in an election where he ran as a change agent.

Many on the left, and in fact many Democrats, saw a real opportunity to reverse the hard rightward shift of Bush, who not only didn't have a mandate, but didn't even win the election in 2000.

imho

[marlakay]

50. Times have changed completely

24 hr news and internet, and after Bush people got their expectations up so much for Obama there was no way he could reach them. And even though healthcare failed the big internet boom was starting and lots of new tech jobs. And I don't remember CNN being so political back then, it was more real news. There was no Fox and msnbc no one really watched. And no liberal radio talk almost at all.

[amandabeech]

52. Lower unemployment in 1994. n/t

[glitch]

54. We learned how dangerous it was to trust the DLC? nt

[Number23]

55. Couldn't rec this fast enough. And I think that you should go ahead and mention

the "other elephant" that you think is in the room.

[firedupdem]

59. Excellent Post! Rec'd!

I think the MSM has gone insane, the internet, and of course his ethnicity plays a part. Republicans don't have a lock on racism. There are plenty of self described Liberals/Progressive/Democrats that are just as sick about having an African American president as the republican tea party. No use beating around the bush about it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

68. well.. yeah

:D

[jefferson_dem]

74. And that includes some who supported John Edwards...

After all... he was to be the populist torch-bearer. <snicker>

[jefferson_dem]

72. BINGO.

Many of these serial malcontents were simply never going to be satisfied, regardless.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Utter Nonsense. Put your money where your mouth is.

The DU archives are searchable. Come up with a reasonable method to test your hypothesis. I'll bet $100 that you're totally wrong.

[jefferson_dem]

87. FWIW...

I do not include you in my comment above.

As I recall, you were on the "ObamaWagon" but jumped off at some point after January 2009.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. Thank you for noticing!

I'm flattered!

Yes, I was an Obama supporter from very early on, campaigned and contributed.

[Alenne]

67. I've even seen excuses made for Clinton signing DADT/ DOMA

But Obama is villified for not ending both.

[Number23]

105. See Post #7

[jesus_of_suburbia]

169. Some posters like to pretend things are the same today as they were 15 years ago.

I think most people who truly support gay rights wouldn't do that.

[Number23]

172. And some posters like to pretend that the differences between Clinton and Obama

are like night and day when in fact, the only "night and day" difference between the two is the way that they were treated by the people who scream the loudest to be their supporters.

[jefferson_dem]

69. Vitriolic assholery is simply more commonplace in political "discourse" nowadays.

On the left and the right.

Not America's proudest moment to say the least.

[totodeinhere]

71. Because a lot of us learned our lesson with Clinton and we're no going down that road again. n/t

[DURHAM D]

85. What road - the peace and prosperity road that Clinton took us on?

Yep - I hated that.

[totodeinhere]

89. No, the NAFTA, DADT, DOMA,and "welfare reform" road

[dionysus]

90. bill clinton is teh baby jeebus

[DURHAM D]

92. if you say so

[ibegurpard]

118. exactly

[woo me with science]

77. People are hurting.

People are struggling and in desperate pain and terror for their future and their children's future.

They are aching for signs of real progress to turn this doomed train around and restore their faith in what it means to be an American.

[BrklynLiberal]

81. The economy, the war and the internet

[craigmatic]

82. The economy is worse, Obama isn't as passionate as WJC, and the repubs are more hateful.

The media is also backing these tea party stories and other culture wars harder now. Not to mention Faux news wasn't around in 1994.

[KansasVoter]

83. Very Simple.......much higher expectations!

Record setting donations. Record setting Volunteers. A feeling this was going to be TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Patriot act revoked. DADT repealed immediately, Etc.

[Political Tiger]

84. K & R! The more we bicker and bitch the more those in the middle will move to the right

and really, who can blame them? They see the loud, angry left attacking the president even more than Fox does and say why would I want to get caught up in that crap? You've got so-called "progressive" blogs like AMERICAblog and FireDogLake whose sole purpose is to smear this president, and so-called "progressive" media whores like Michael Moore who whine about Obama every chance they get out of a selfish need for attention, and all this endless self-pity and bellyaching does nothing but turn off those in the middle who aren't quite as media savvy as most of us here are.

Most American's aren't political junkies who pay undivided attention to what's happening in D.C. and all they hear is bits and pieces of what the media chooses to talk about, and since the media likes to concentrate on the negative, and God knows we supply them with enough negativity, that's all people hear.

All the good Obama has done gets drowned out by the constant criers on the left who look for any excuse to complain....hell, the right doesn't really have to do anything but sit back and enjoy the show and follow the angry left's lead.

The far-left's zeal to sabotage this presidency is dumbfounding as all they are accomplishing is to sabotage our own agenda by aiding and abetting the GOP's aganda of keeping this country in the dark ages.

[Orsino]

88. Because the Left has finally learned that the American Way is unsustainable.

Our margin for error has shrunk dramatically.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

95. You're as bad as the Reich wingers that insist we only voted for him because he is black

Your charge may fit in some cases but it is a smear technique to apply that across the board to anybody who isn't happen with the job the President is doing.

You aren't engaging with those who have said their piece but just scream racism, forgetting some of the critics are black and aren't a bunch of Toms/Uncle Ruckus'.

You also forget it was a whole lot of folks not in love with the Clintons by any stretch of the imagination not because of race but policy and ideology and those people. Pushed for Obama very hard and still ended up with the Clinton hacks running the show with the same Clinton neoliberal destructive agenda.

If people wanted more Clinton then they would have voted for one and she would have won quite handily. Fuck no people aren't up for another eight year run of this same bullshit we have just seen to give it a chance regardless of Barack's pigmentation.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. For what being black isn't making trickle down, free trade, playing patty cake with the TeaPubliKlans, corporate taint licking, screw the workers, funnel the wealth to the wealthy politics work.

There was a perfectly white Clinton there to vote for and it was in the majority of cases urgently bypassed for the the black guy you now want to pretend everybody is racist against.
It's moronic. Save that shit for bitter Hillary deadenders and centrist corpocrats bitching about being too liberal.

The country is in the crapper with the bottom 40% of us trying to get by on about 3.5% of the pie and the bottom 60% of us snarling over less than 12% and a big chunk of us out of work, sucking pay cuts and more work, and falling further and further behind and he is almost exclusively surrounded by the same dipshits that built this turdpile and constantly executing rehashed dumbfuck Republican policies and calling them reform.

If he wasn't following the Clinton roadmap, with Clinton hacks, with Clinton ideology, while playing footsie with the Republicans he didn't get in the administration folks would have more patience, I know I would be this is fucking Groundhog's Day in a worse environment.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

101. I'm not calling you names or asking for any retractions. I'm setting you straight

and attempting to engage you but rather than to respond to the criticisms and points made you insist on being emotional to the point of hysteria and paranoid as the purity of essence guy in Strangelove.

I grant you that there is validity to your "theory" but it is also far from universal but you don't wish to do more digging in than finger pointing at many of the same people who busted ass to not only win the general but to defeat Clinton in the primaries. You are not even trying to be an honest broker but rather in being a hysterical bombthrower unwilling to consider any alternative to racism just like the hysterical hilbot pumas do the same song and dance with sexism when folks were running away from her for the same reasons they are displeased with Barack now.

It's the corporatism stupid!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

120. It's the corporatism, but the racism is undercutting that, too. It's not me being emotional

I'm telling the truth and there are so many people who refuse to acknowledge that truth. It's not just about politics. It's much, much more than that.

When Clinton was in office, they hated him because he is a Democrat. They hated him because he is brilliant. And they hated him because he had the audacity to beat a Bush.

Now that Obama is in office, hey hate him because he is a Democrat. They hate him because he is brilliant. And they hate him because he had the audacity to be a Bush, a Clinton, and a McCain. But they also hate him because he's black. For being to continue to deny this fact is absolutely astonishing to me.

And rest assured, had Hillary been the president, they'd hate her because she is a Democrat, brilliant, beat Bush and McCain. AND...because she's a woman. The Righties only pretend that they'd like Hillary. They only pretend that they like her. And to the extent that she'd give them their wars and behave like the DLC Democrat that she is, they like her. But, for those who continue to assert that had Hillary been the president, she'd be able to fend off Republicans, think again. Hillary would have had a very tough time as well. And we'd never get past her failed health care program, the travel office firings, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater and Vince Foster.

[dsc]

94. Wellstone was talking about possibly primarying him

and likely only refrained from doing so due to illness (he had MS). I lived back then, and the left was protesting him in both 93 and in 94. Gays were upset of DADT (I lived in Chicago's boystown back then so I even joined in). The left was just as upset then, if you don't believe me search the archives of the Nation and Mother Jones both ran several critical articles. Labor unions sat on the sidelines in 94 over NAFTA.

On edit

Here is a link to a lengthy article about possible primary challengers to Clinton and why he didn't face them.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Anyone+left%3F+The+search+for+a+Clinton+challenger+in+1996-a016914424

[HughMoran]

96. Internet

Now everybody thinks what they are saying can make a difference.

[depakid]

97. Two things come to mind:

The Clinton administration didn't go out of its way to badmouth its constituencies while it was pandering to the right, and

The Clinton administration didn't- while letting off the previous administration, also let off torturers, banksters, and all manners of corporate criminals and corrupt public officials en masse.

[Jennicut]

100. Well, in 1994 when I went off to college no one really had a laptop and

we all had AOL dialup with hideous chatrooms. Things were different in those days. Not many of us on campus had cell phones and they were all for talking. Now my kids at 5 and 6 are on the internet more then I was as an 18 year old. Everyone can have an instant shared opinion and a blog and post messages on boards, etc. There was no Faux News, there was no MSNBC. There was CNN and that was it. As younger people, we were used to listening to messages that were either/or. Criticism of the Dems by the left was briefly covered on the news regarding NAFTA but not too many other times. I remember that distinctly.

[slipslidingaway]

110. Demographics - older and perhaps wiser - fool me once ...

there are many more boomers who gave words a chance, now when words are not matched with actions they get upset.

[ClassWarrior]

117. 1) We have more information, and 2) we've learned our lessons about the Fascist Rightwing.

NGU.

[leveymg]

119. Obama raised our expectations for Hope & Change higher, and we worked harder to get him elected

Barack managed to capture and reflect everyone's aspirations for reform, even quite different visions, without promising many specifics. We just took it on faith that the changes would be fundamental. There seemed to be Perfect Storm blowing away the old way of doing things. Apparently, not so. Obama has done a masterful job of not only saving the ship, but keeping the center-right and Wall Street crowd on the upper decks happy, at the expense of the rest of us. In other words, we're still on the wrong course toward greater inequality and privatization.

Clinton, on the other hand, was quite openly a New Democrat of the southern centrist variety with a bit of a populist aura. After 12 years of Reagan-Bush, we were happy just for a Democrat, pretty much any one would do.

Another reason, I think, is that so many progressives worked so damned hard getting Obama and a Democratic Congress elected. The results were disappointing, to say the least. The HCR debacle -- mandatory private insurance and no Public Option -- really did it for a lot of us. Just another industry bail-out and precious little for the middle-class.

That's why we're all worked up. We feel like we got baited-and-switched this time.

[ClassWarrior]

121. That's an excellent insight.

NGU.

[leveymg]

122. Thanks. I think some others said pretty much the same thing, above.

Lots of good, insightful thinking around here on a vast range of issues. I've learned a lot at DU over the years.

[GeorgeGist]

127. Fool me once ...

[RBInMaine]

132. Good post. Spot on. Clinton and Obama BOTH = damn good !!

[Chan790]

204. Well, someone had to think so.

I think reality however bears out that they're a couple of quisling centrist traitors to Democratic ideals.

[slay]

134. It's really quite astonishing that you think

"the left" - however you define it - was in love with Clinton. I was not. We on the left that I knew were not. All the progressive I knew knew that NAFA was a betrayal. We used to joke about how Clinton was a great Republican president. So I submit to YOU that YOU are not really all that "left". Especially if you think Clinton or Obama were either A. A great president, or B. In any way representing progressive values. They did not, do not, and are not. THAT is why "the left" is unhappy with Obama. The middle - the pro status quo - the easily lead - the "hey at least he's better than the republicans" crowd - they like him just fine.

[Jakes Progress]

137. Why is the center of 2010 so forgiving of policies

that they would condemn if they came from a republican administration?

Seriously. When Clinton did the kumbayah, bi-partisan, make-buddies-with-the-republican thing, it was a new idea. At that time the republicans still had a few honest conservatives who still cared more about the country than they did themselves. By the end of the Clinton administration, I would hope that the lesson would have been learned. republicans can't be trusted to do the right thing or be honest. Maybe thirty years ago, one could have an honest disagreement with them, but now they have completely sold out. gingrich and co. proved that.

So my guess is that so many of us are angry that Obama tried it again. What made him think he was so much better at it than Bill that he could make it work? Many of us warned that all that pussy-footing would not only cost us the best chance for real change but also cost us votes and elections.

Still like Bill. Still think Obama is cool. But I don't think he has a good grasp on what things are like, on how to deal with vipers and liars.

[bkozumplik]

139. On the sad state of the Lilly Ledbetter Act

Read up on what Lilly Ledbetter herself says about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lilly-ledbetter/for-women-what-a-differen_b_436113.html

then read the description of the bill
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

Now read up on the Paycheck Fairness Act, the act that actually provides the teeth and victim protections for what was set up in the Ledbetter act:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1338

and see the teeth was left to die in congress. Ledbetter simply extends the statue of limitations, but then we failed to provide good remedies for those failures. So you tell me, was Ledbetter a success, or another half measure that should have had some leadership in congress and from the president and didnt. They should have done the hard work to finish the job, but they held ceremonies basically saying "mission accomplished" and they stopped working on it.

Without the Paycheck Fairness Act, your employer can legally fire you if you inquire about wage practices, or disclose your wage (in protesting it).

Heck of a job Reid. Way to shunt that to a committee so it could die. You're a jerk. I can't wait till Reid goes away-- he's utterly useless.

[Enrique]

141. your premise is false

the left was in fact harder on Clinton than they are now against Obama.

Michael Moore for example pounded him pretty regularly. His "TV Nation" was from 1994. Now, Moore mostly holds his fire. He does criticize Obama, but he does it much more carefully.

Ralph Nader ran against Clinton in 1996 and had a lot of sympathy from the left. Nader is pretty much a pariah these days.

[Forkboy]

142. It isn't. Suck up, Clinton did.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

144. fail

[Forkboy]

145. Yes, the whiners are failing.

Clinton took a ration of the shit from the Left the likes of which Obama has yet to see. He (like some of his supporters, apparently) is just more sensitive.

[NJmaverick]

146. bull

[Forkboy]

149. Well, your detailed rebuttals have put me in my place.

Maybe your next post will contain two (count 'em!) words!!!!

Here's to your vocabulary! :toast:

[NJmaverick]

155. maybe

[Forkboy]

159. If that doesn't convince people then I don't know what will!

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

150. It just seems that way because of the internetz and 24/7 cable news coverage. nt

[Forkboy]

160. I don't see NJMaverick jumping on YOUR ass!

We said pretty much the same thing, only you put it nicer than me. One would think FACTS matter, and not the delivery.

Maybe he just thinks you're hot. And compared to me, who isn't? :freak:

[AtomicKitten]

166. it's only natural

that people defer to my smoldering hotness - they're only human, ya know

[Forkboy]

167. Heh!

:thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

152. Women dug Clinton

They seem to like Obama too, but not in the same way.

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

162. People remember that no good came of being EASY on Clinton in '94.

It's called "learning from mistakes".

Bill Clinton was given a pass, in the first two years, on EVERYTHING from progressives. Then, when HE caused the loss of both houses of Congress in '94, this same Bill Clinton blamed the progressives who hadn't ASKED anything of him, and gave up trying to either do anything progressive OR trying to restore Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We got six years of nothing, and this inevitably led to the failure of 2000(a clear progressive would have BEATEN Bush).

This is what happens when you do what the centrists want and "STFU".

[Ken Burch]

163. Of course the left should have asked more of Clinton

That's WHY they're asking more of Obama. Nobody who's being tough on Obama would still DEFEND the decision to cut Clinton a break.

[Politics_Guy25]

175. To me what it boils down to

is that the threat of the GOP and President Palin is just so great that we have to take what we can get right now BUT, in the 2016 primary process, we can all make DAMN sure that the nominee is a true progressive.

Again, be very wary of a 2012 primary challenge, it will lead to nothing but disaster.

It is also undoubtedly the case that President Obama is far more progressive than President Clinton at least post-1994.

Also, perhaps it says something that each time a president has tried to take the public to the left, i.e., in 1993 and in 2009, there has been a massive revolt. Maybe it's true that America is a 'center-right' country, more like an extreme right-wing fascist state to be honest. We have to work on changing that first before we can ever get a truly progressive president.

The America of the 1930s was FAR more progressive than the America of today.

November 22, 1963 is the day that changed everything.

[rury]

165. Clinton=white, Obama=black

'nuff said.
The bar is always higher when you're black.
EOM

[jesus_of_suburbia]

170. Obama=man, Clinton=woman (2008 on DU)

'nuff said

[bkozumplik]

174. oh please.

right, its all a color thing. Thanks for the insight.

[CBR]

182. Exactly. No one seems to have a problem admitting that

some liberals/progressives are sexist and/or homophobic but do not ever say they are racist. White privilege strikes again.

[AspenRose]

187. Hey, I thought we weren't going to talk about The Elephant.

[NashVegas]

194. Heaven Forbid Somene On the Left Have Issues With Obama's Chicago Economics School Policies

[uponit7771]

193. Come on!! We were supposed to have 123423 post thread without mentioning this /sarcasm

[begin_within]

168. Compare the economy in 1994 with that in 2010.

[ZombieHorde]

188. What method did you use to determine the Left's hardness on the two Presidents?

How are you coming to these conclusions?

[Carolina]

189. we've learned a lot in 16 years

and realize how screwed we've been by the HOPE mantra:
the man from Hope campaign 1992
Hope and Change campaign 2008

[Skittles]

197. we were hard on Clinton

absolutely - in fact, this all feels very familiar to me

[annabanana]

198. Because we were shaken out of our stupor by 8 HORRENDOUS TERRIBLE

AWFUL YEARS of severe maladministration and the worst possible excesses of misrule imaginable.

We have been paying much more attention and we can see what the result of the POLICIES have been. And now we rail against those policies regardless of source.

[whatever56]

199. Cut to the chase here

The reason people hate Obama is because hating black men has always been America's favorite pastime. There's nothing new here just the same old thing some of us have experienced for a long time. The right made this hysterical hatred "the spirit of the times" and the so called left picked it up and ran with it too. There is no other explanation. There have never been so many people second guessing everything our president does until the presidency was won by a black man. Now everyone is smarter, more capable and more courageous than he is. You can challenge what I say all you want, I know what I am experiencing I have a little history with it. SOS

[boppers]

200. Welcome to DU!

One thing about us is that we always have people here who are "smarter, more capable and more courageous than he is". It's a democratic/internet thing, I think.

That being said, there are *huge* amounts of folks in US society who regularly traffic in racism, completely blind to what they're doing. Check out:

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

For a giggle and some groans.

:evilgrin:

[quakerboy]

201. A few things to think about

We had just been through a longer stretch of multiple republican presidents, and Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. That is a far more convincing spot to argue that we need to unite or loose, than a 53% victory. Its also much harder to argue that Bill Clinton had a mandate in 92, or that he threw away all that support by not enacting a progressive agenda. He won with far less than a majority, and governed from the center, which seems somewhat reasonable, if not what I would prefer. The same cannot be said for President Obama

Unlike the pile on the internet bandwagon going on here, I would say that the big difference is higher expectations and lower trust. The younger generation that came in bigtime for Obama had very high expectations, untempered by "realism". Others also had high expectations which have not been met in any easily fulfilling way. Virtually every victory has been tainted, and most have been shoved off for another day.

Then, there is the sound chamber of the internet. The ability of people to talk directly to each other, certainly plays a part. In 94, if you had a problem with Clinton, what were ya gonna do about it, complain to your best buddy over a beer? Now, anyone with an issue can come to the internet and with relative ease share that thought with hundreds or thousands of people. And that reinforces itself. When you know others are dissatisfied, how much easier is it to join a ready chorus of dissatisfaction than to try to create one from scratch? That so many here find fault with that, I think, speaks more of them than of the validity of the results.

Then there are those who feel that the times are more desperate, as you started to mention. Its beyond an economic crisis. I perceive a cultural and moral crisis as well. And while President Obama may have halted or at least greatly slowed the slide we were in, many people feel that we are already at the end, the bottom of what we can take. Sometimes it feels there is hardly enough left to be worth fighting for. And its always hard to feel grateful to someone for helping the economy if you are still loosing your house, or if you are reaching the impending end of your unemployment benefits. And with the internet, we all know that that cousin you met three times at family reunions back east when you were a kid is about to lose his house. So Who you gonna believe... a speech on tv or your lyin eyes.

Im sure there is more to it as well.

[ecstatic]

205. elephant in the room indeed... nt