Robert Reich: The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democratic Party

[ProSense]

The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democratic Party

<...>

Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment...So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats’ new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President’s push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.

And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme...But if Occupy Wall Street coalesces into something like a real movement, the Democratic Party may have more difficulty digesting it than the GOP has had with the Tea Party.

After all, a big share of both parties’ campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms. The Street and corporate America also have hordes of public-relations flacks and armies of lobbyists to do their bidding – not to mention the unfathomably deep pockets of the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey’s and Karl Rove’s SuperPACs. Even if the Occupiers have access to some union money, it’s hardly a match.

Yet the real difficulty lies deeper. A little history is helpful here.

<...>

The Democratic Party never regained its populist footing. To be sure, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 promising to “fight for the forgotten middle class” against the forces of “greed,” but Clinton inherited such a huge budget deficit from Reagan and George H.W. Bush that he couldn’t put up much of a fight. And after losing his bid for universal health care, Clinton himself announced that the “era of big government” was over – and he proved it by ending welfare.

more

[pnwmom]

1. I'm glad that he brought up the similarity to 1968, which brought us Nixon.

I've been thinking about that myself lately -- the similarities. Demonstrations on the left could help us if they move Congress to the left; but not if all they push progressives away from the Democratic party.

[tcaudilllg]

6. If a Republican wins the presidency next year, they may be the first president-elect

to be removed before taking power.

And that was true even before OWS.

[Cal33]

30. You mean like we hope Gov. Walker of WI will be removed? Repealed? Based on

what? Vote rigging? But the Pubs will only be rigging the repeal votes, too. Also, won't they be
appealing to the Supreme Court (5 - 4 in their favor?).

[tcaudilllg]

46. Expect something akin to a coup if someone dedicated to destroying our

goods and services takes office. Someone says they hate big government? This is not the 80s, Bush already happened, and we are at the brink. If the debt grows so great that not even raising taxes on the rich will contain its growth, our civilization will collapse...

[OHdem10]

2. It will be the best thing in the world for this country if OWS becomes

a full-fledged Movement. Not so much for the Democratic
Party. The Party may be forced to become A Democratic
Party and not a Republican Lite Party. Change would be
painful for the Democratic Party. I predict that over time
if changes are not made, there will be a serious Third
Party (representing Middle and Working Class)and Poor. Change
is coming. OWS may force it sooner rather than later.

[Honeycombe8]

20. That's what I'm thinking, too. This has possibilities. nt

[lunatica]

3. The door of possibility has been kicked open

Whatever happens now is beyong anyone's control.

[Enthusiast]

4. The main focus of OWS should be

in removing the influence of money from the elections and the legislative process. This is what is wrong with our democracy and nearly everyone knows it.

Publicly financed elections now!

[tcaudilllg]

7. won't last

what's the point? The only solution is to create a permanent advantage for our agenda. The only solution is constitutional amendments safeguarding our public services.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. a brilliant and very interesting article but I hope the future is brighter than his prediction

snip:

To the contrary, Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business – making Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary and de facto ambassador from the Street; seeing to it that Bush’s Fed appointee, Ben Bernanke, got another term; and appointing GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt to head his jobs council.

Most tellingly, it was President Obama’s unwillingness to place conditions on the bailout of Wall Street – not demanding, for example, that the banks reorganize the mortgages of distressed homeowners, and that they accept the resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act, as conditions for getting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars – that contributed to the new populist insurrection.

snip:

This is not to say that the Occupiers can have no impact on the Democrats. Nothing good happens in Washington – regardless of how good our president or representatives may be – unless good people join together outside Washington to make it happen. Pressure from the left is critically important.

But the modern Democratic Party is not likely to embrace left-wing populism the way the GOP has embraced – or, more accurately, been forced to embrace – right-wing populism. Just follow the money, and remember history.

http://robertreich.org/post/11158838569

[polichick]

11. This says to me that the Democratic Party may have outlived its usefullness...

...at least to "We, the people."

Can't wait to see what grows from this populist movement.

[polichick]

8. Both parties are teeming with corporate whores...

The prez could have seen that the Wall Street banksters were brought to justice - instead he infused his administration with Goldman Sachs.

I hope he gets the real message of this movement and doesn't simply embrace the parts that are politically convenient. But then, hope isn't something that has panned out so well - which is why we are seeing this movement.

[ProSense]

9. Some

"The prez could have seen that the Wall Street banksters were brought to justice - instead he infused his administration with Goldman Sachs."

...have: Former Chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison and Ordered to Forfeit $38.5 Million

It all comes down to one event: the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The reason Dodd-Frank was necessary is because Glass-Steagall, which made a lot of the actions leading to the crisis illegal, was repealed.

Still, the administration has been prosecuting financial fraud connected to the crisis: StopFraud.gov.

[polichick]

10. Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, etc., etc., etc...

Let's face it, this is The Goldman Sachs Administration - the prez can change that if he wants to. My bet is he has no intention of changing it.

[Citizen Worker]

12. I agree. Change is not what Obama is about. Never was.

[polichick]

14. He's definitely not into the kind of structural change Occupy Wall Street is about...

My guess is he'll use the movement if he can for his campaign but won't be any more into real change if he's reelected than he has been.

[Enthusiast]

16. The chant of 'Change' was camouflage for the real policies

that were to come.

If President Obama had not been a secret ally of Wall Street, big money would have swift boated him to death. And THAT is a fact. So now what do we do about it? We are fucked. We are fucked as a nation and as a party.

[tcaudilllg]

47. He tried, but he can't do it alone.

To keep the country together, he has to try to remain popular with as many people as possible. Popularity limits you... unless you're a Republican, in which case you want to be as popular as possible. :)

[ProSense]

13. Um

"Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, etc., etc., etc...Let's face it, this is The Goldman Sachs Administration - the prez can change that if he wants to. My bet is he has no intention of changing it."

Summers and Emanuel are no longer with the administration. Disdain is understood, but when did any of these people work for Goldman Sachs?

<...>

Though he's a career regulator who's never worked for a financial institution, Geithner's no hero to the nation's growing anti-Wall Street protest movement. Indeed Geithner's critics regard him as an obstacle to the sorts of tough regulations and reforms they believe Wall Street needs.

link

Best to stick with the facts.

The primary point is that there have been prosecutions.

[polichick]

15. The fact is that criminals at the highest levels ARE NOT prosecuted...

Cheney is still selling books and Goldman Sachs is doing fine.


"To date, there has been only one successful prosecution of a financial big fish from the mortgage bubble, and that was Lee Farkas, a Florida lender who was just convicted on a smorgasbord of fraud charges and now faces life in prison. But Farkas, sadly, is just an exception proving the rule: Like Bernie Madoff, his comically excessive crime spree (which involved such lunacies as kiting checks to his own bank and selling loans that didn't exist) was almost completely unconnected to the systematic corruption that led to the crisis. What's more, many of the earlier criminals in the chain of corruption — from subprime lenders like Countrywide, who herded old ladies and ghetto families into bad loans, to rapacious banks like Washington Mutual, who pawned off fraudulent mortgages on investors — wound up going belly up, sunk by their own greed.

But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them — and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime — a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511



Bold emphasis is mine. Sure, Pres. Obama remains the lesser of evils, but it looks like Occupy Wall Street is about people no longer being willing to accept the structural evil that has destroyed the middle class. It will be interesting to see what the prez learns from this movement and who he and other Dems decide to represent in the future.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

18. Point

"The fact is that criminals at the highest levels ARE NOT prosecuted..."

...understood, but like I said, it all comes down to one event: the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Even Matt Taibbi can understand that:

<...>

But the reality is, the brains of investment bankers by nature are not wired for "client-based" thinking. This is the reason why the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept investment banks and commercial banks separate, was originally passed back in 1933: it just defies common sense to have professional gamblers in charge of stewarding commercial bank accounts.

<...>

Nonetheless, thanks to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1998 with the help of Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm and a host of other short-sighted politicians, we now have a situation where trillions in federally-insured commercial bank deposits have been wedded at the end of a shotgun to exactly such career investment bankers from places like Salomon Brothers (now part of Citi), Merrill Lynch (Bank of America), Bear Stearns (Chase), and so on.

<...>

Also see: UBS Scandal Is a Reminder About Why Dodd-Frank Came to Be

[MNBrewer]

22. Rahm Emanuel

Simple Google search reveals his employers

<http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/231-rahm-emanuel>

[pnwmom]

19. If OWS leads to a major schism within Democratic party, all progressives will lose.

Because a divided left can't win against a united Republican party -- and the Tea Partyers aren't going anywhere.

[polichick]

21. OWS is about the structural change this country desperately needs...

It's up to the Democratic Party to figure out who and what it represents.

If the Party had been representing the 99% during the last four decades, OWS wouldn't be necessary.

[MNBrewer]

23. Exactly!

"The Left" has decided that the Democratic party has been behaving like a neglectful spouse and is giving them a "come to Jesus" moment. I just hope the make-up sex is good.

[polichick]

24. Ha! Good make-up sex would be a lot nicer than someone getting...

...kicked to the curb.

[ProSense]

25. Interesting

OWS is about the structural change this country desperately needs...It's up to the Democratic Party to figure out who and what it represents.

If the Party had been representing the 99% during the last four decades, OWS wouldn't be necessary.

This President is at least trying to move the ball forward. It's not easy to reverse 40 years of damage.

Here's Bernie Sanders:

<...>

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s lending programs during the financial crisis.

<...>

Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.

<...>

Although Reich downplays the effects of Wall Street reform, the law does reverse many of the policies initiated over the last couple of decades to weaken financial regulations. The Volcker rule, which is being finalized this month, is basically Glass-Steagall. There was a complaint about an exception, but the rule also addresses issues that were not covered by Glass-Steagall.

The law can be improved upon, but it is a huge step in the right direction.

Also, the overall effect of Obama's policies will be an increase in taxes on the top one percent.

[polichick]

26. The prez does seem to be waking up - or at least campaigning - but he is...

...still the guy who filled his administration with corporate/Wall Street hacks instead of public servants who would put the people and the planet first - and he did it from the economic team to his agriculture head (how nice that the first family gets organic while the country gets Monsanto) to his Interior head (though environmentalists warned about the dangers) to the healthcare "negotiations."

As I said, OWS is about STRUCTURAL change - something the WH has turned away from time and time again. I do believe Pres. Obama wants to tweak things in favor of fairness but he has shown how invested he is in the current corporate structure on all fronts.

[ProSense]

27. The

"The prez does seem to be waking up - or at least campaigning - but he is..."

...point has nothing to do with "campaigning." It was strictly about policy, specifically Wall Street reform.

...still the guy who filled his administration with corporate/Wall Street hacks instead of public servants who would put the people and the planet first - and he did it from the economic team to his agriculture head (how nice that the first family gets organic while the country gets Monsanto) to his Interior head (though environmentalists warned about the dangers) to the healthcare "negotiations."

You know, I find this to be about as relevant as believing that someone is progressive because they're outspoken. It's a diversion: let's talk people instead of policy.

What the hell does that have to do with the point I made?

[polichick]

28. Funny you should mention "diversion" as you post yet another bit that liberals might approve of...

...seemingly in an effort to overlook the really disturbing fact that this prez has embraced Wall Street and corporate power from the get-go.

(As for Wall Street reform, it was watered down like everything else - and, as you should know, the WH is not exactly standing with those state attorneys who want to prosecute bankers. Quite the opposite.)

[ProSense]

29. Funny

(As for Wall Street reform, it was watered down like everything else - and, as you should know, the WH is not exactly standing with those state attorneys who want to prosecute bankers. Quite the opposite.)

...typical response to the point that the bill is a huge step in right direction.

[polichick]

33. Typical head-in-the-sand response to everything I've said - as usual.

[Beacool]

31. Exactly!!!

Which brings us to the present day. Barack Obama is many things but he is as far from left-wing populism as any Democratic president in modern history. True, he once had the temerity to berate “fat cats” on Wall Street, but that remark was the exception – and subsequently caused him endless problems on the Street.

To the contrary, Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business – making Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary and de facto ambassador from the Street; seeing to it that Bush’s Fed appointee, Ben Bernanke, got another term; and appointing GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt to head his jobs council.

Most tellingly, it was President Obama’s unwillingness to place conditions on the bailout of Wall Street – not demanding, for example, that the banks reorganize the mortgages of distressed homeowners, and that they accept the resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act, as conditions for getting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars – that contributed to the new populist insurrection.

The last sentence is precisely what my brother contends was the biggest mistake of the Obama administration in the early days of 2009. In case you wonder who the heck is my brother, he is a well respected economist in Europe who is in the EEC in Brussels.

The banks took the government's money, paid their debt, kept the money and have posted record breaking years since 2009. Goldman Sachs being at the head of the pack.

x(

[ProSense]

32. What

do you make of this:

The Democratic Party never regained its populist footing. To be sure, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 promising to “fight for the forgotten middle class” against the forces of “greed,” but Clinton inherited such a huge budget deficit from Reagan and George H.W. Bush that he couldn’t put up much of a fight. And after losing his bid for universal health care, Clinton himself announced that the “era of big government” was over – and he proved it by ending welfare.

Like I said in another post, this President is at least trying to move the ball foward.

Here's Bernie Sanders:

<...>

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s lending programs during the financial crisis.

<...>

Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.

<...>

Although Reich downplays the effects of Wall Street reform, the law does reverse many of the policies initiated over the last couple of decades to weaken financial regulations. The Volcker rule, which is being finalized this month, is basically Glass-Steagall. There was a complaint about an exception, but the rule also addresses issues that were not covered by Glass-Steagall.

The law can be improved upon, but it is a huge step in the right direction.

Also, the overall effect of Obama's policies will be an increase in taxes on the top one percent.

[MNBrewer]

34. Barack Obama is not the Democratic Party

I know it's always about him for you, but the two things are not synonymous.

[ProSense]

35. Well

"Barack Obama is not the Democratic Party. I know it's always about him for you, but the two things are not synonymous."

...neither are you, but you seem to be focused on him like a laser. At least I have a reason: I am a supporter.

What's yours?

[MNBrewer]

36. Because he's the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government

[ProSense]

37. .

"Because he's the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government"

And?

Looks like we've all got a reason.

:rofl:

[MNBrewer]

38. I love how you always have a rational

:rofl: in response

[Beacool]

39. Look, I know that you're one of his biggest supporters on this board.

But the reality is that Obama had very little experience at the national level and he was not ready to handle the financial crisis that hit us in Sept. 2007 like a tsunami. Experience DOES matter in life and politics is no exception. No one here is arguing that he is not a bright man who means well, but nothing can replace knowing what one is doing. Obama has always been a bit too overconfident in his own skills and intellect. Granted that he is very accomplished, but no one is an expert on every issue and Obama is no exception.

I find this article interesting. It's pretty much what I've heard from people in DC who are in the know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.html

;-)

[ProSense]

40. I know

But the reality is that Obama had very little experience at the national level and he was not ready to handle the financial crisis that hit us in Sept. 2007 like a tsunami.

...he's inexperienced!!!

Barack Obama: Foreign Policy Ninja Master

Senator Franken: The importance of the Reocovery Act

<...>

Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2009. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country-over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids in our communities.
It's simple-economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.

Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator. As opposed to being a candidate for Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. When you're a candidate, you're speaking mainly to your own party. When you're trying to get the nomination, when you're getting out the vote. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. I travel all over the state of Minnesota and meet with mayors and city council members, and county commissioners, and small businesses.

And everywhere I go, they thank me for the Recovery Act. They thank me for the teachers and firefighters, for the Workforce Investment Act funds, which they used to train people for jobs. For the highway extension or the wastewater plant or the funds for rural broadband or for weatherization of public buildings.

In fact, Michael Gunwald, writing for Time Magazine, said this: "the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."

<...>

President Obama is working to build a lasting legacy.

Whether it's saving the auto industry, labor policies, environmental policies, helping low income communities and families and homeless Americans, establishing the CFPB, and other reforms, the things this President has done, will have a lasting impact on real families.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

<...>

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

Reducing costs, protecting consumers: The Affordable Care Act on the one year anniversary of the Patient’s Bill of Rights

One year after the Affordable Care Act’s Patient’s Bill of Rights took effect, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report summarizing some of the achievements of the health reform law. In the eighteen months since the president signed the Affordable Care Act into law, health reform has had a tangible effect in the lives of millions of Americans. The report discusses how the law is helping to give hardworking families the security they deserve and the reforms in the Affordable Care Act that have helped hold down insurance premiums, hold insurance companies more accountable and strengthen Medicare.

“The Affordable Care Act has made the health care system better for millions of Americans,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “As a mother, a wife and a daughter, I know how important health coverage is for America’s families. This law is helping to give hard working families the security they deserve and stop insurance company abuses, hold down insurance premiums and strengthen Medicare.”

Recent reports, including the U.S. Census and the National Health Information Survey, have indicated that approximately one million additional young Americans now have insurance coverage due to the Affordable Care Act according to experts. The Patient’s Bill of Rights made it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to a child with a pre-existing condition or place a lifetime limit on the care they will provide. Through Affordable Care Act initiatives, 19 million seniors with Medicare have received new free preventive benefits, while efforts to cut fraud and abuse have extended the Medicare Trust Fund by 8 years, strengthening the Medicare program.

To read more about the many accomplishments of the law visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/patients-bill-of-rights09232011a.pdf

To read a blog commemorating today by Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Richard Sorian visit: www.healthcare.gov/blog

And he saved the auto industry


From the WaPo article you cited declaring the President a "loner" (LOL!):

That historic legislation, however, has become a political burden for Obama as he heads into 2012. The months it took to secure health-care reform ate up political capital that could have been used on job-creation initiatives, such as the one he is pushing now against stiff Republican opposition.

Yeah, how did that Republican opposition to health care work out in WV?

[JoePhilly]

41. Exactly WHO do you think had the experience to deal with this mess?

I just want you to name the person who had the experience to deal with the incredible mess Bush and the GOP left.

My personal view is that no one alive today had the experience to deal with this .... this mess is going to take YEARS, maybe DECADES to correct.

And so please, tell us who the SAVIOR was.

Thanks.

[Beacool]

42. I wasn't talking only about economic inexperience,

but also knowledge of how things work in DC. He didn't know how to herd the Congress critters (he's still not that good at it). They are a prickly bunch, including the members of his own party. They don't like to be dictated to and they balk at orders (such as "pass the bill now"). An effective president knows how to get around Congress. Some members need cajoling, some need threats and some just want to be sweet talked to. It's also important to know what are their own needs. If a member is up for reelection and he comes from a fairly conservative state, his needs are different from some other member who comes from a liberal state. Sending Rahm and Biden are not the same thing as working the phones personally. Washington is full of people with big egos and no president changes DC, Washington changes them.

[ProSense]

43. It's

I wasn't talking only about economic inexperience, but also knowledge of how things work in DC. He didn't know how to herd the Congress critters (he's still not that good at it). They are a prickly bunch, including the members of his own party. They don't like to be dictated to and they balk at orders (such as "pass the bill now"). An effective president knows how to get around Congress.

...fascinating that you're trying to make this case.

From the OP:

The Democratic Party never regained its populist footing. To be sure, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 promising to “fight for the forgotten middle class” against the forces of “greed,” but Clinton inherited such a huge budget deficit from Reagan and George H.W. Bush that he couldn’t put up much of a fight. And after losing his bid for universal health care, Clinton himself announced that the “era of big government” was over – and he proved it by ending welfare.

Obama passed health care reform, remember? Not only that, but the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history.

[Beacool]

44. Can we please focus on today and not on Reagan, Clinton and Bush?

They are not in office anymore. Let's worry about this presidency and not past ones.

;)

[ProSense]

45. Well,

"Can we please focus on today and not on Reagan, Clinton and Bush?"

...OK!

I repeat: Obama passed health care reform, remember? Not only that, but the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history.