Lawrence O: Where was the left when Clinton and the Democrats cut medicare?

[ecstatic]

I was too young to remember, but it's interesting to find out that Clinton cut Medicare and received no objections at all from the left. But President Obama has been called a traitor for simply *discussing* medicare. Why the difference in reaction? :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

1. Maybe the Internet? People may have objected, but weren't

heard. Calling the WH is kind of a wasted effort. But now people can be heard. And if I knew about it I know I would be saying exactly the same thing I'm saying now. So, I'm not sure what the point is. Clinton is lucky there was no real presence on the Internet during his administration. We are only finding out now, many of us, what he was up to while everyone was focused on Monica.

[madfloridian]

3. Yes, the internet.

It opened a whole new world of knowledge. If we had known then what we know now about the changes in the Democratic party....they would not have happened.

[RKP5637]

25. It plus the 7x24 MSM stuff today I think makes people more aware that

somethings going on ... it's pretty hard today to not know something even if just peripheral ... If we had DU back then, for example, more people would have been aware, and DU is one of many many sources today.

[sabrina 1]

62. Thank you, madfloridian. n/t

[ecstatic]

5. Oh, of course, that must have been it. Clinton cut Medicare, passed DADT,

NAFTA, etc... to no objections because...wait for it... there was no Internet!

[Ken Burch]

18. Before you even go any further than this...NO, it was NOT racial.

Clinton was NOT cut slack because he was white. And you damn well know it. The main issue was that the left of the party had been left totally powerless in the party by the DLC and accepted the DLC idea that they had no right to fight for what they stood for, and should simply be happy that somebody who CALLED himself a Democrat was president.

This involved the successful DLC media spin that it was SOLELY the left wing of the party's fault that we lost in 1980, '84, and '88. In truth, it was largely the fault of the center to center-right establishment-insider wing of the party, who didn't really care about winning the presidency because they were happy to settle for just being part of the scene, or whatever. Let's face it, our party's "pros" didn't even try to win those three elections.

[ecstatic]

38. Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous.

The left was silenced by the DLC? Are you serious? The left has never been silenced by anyone! When we care about something, we shout from the rooftops! (Note, even though I include myself in the left, I disassociate myself from the Firebagger types)

[Ken Burch]

44. The other part of that is that those on the left who did fight against Clinton's conservatism

got no media attention at all, which was not our fault.

If the media is, essentially, embargoing coverage of your protests, that is almost impossible to overcome.

What is your real objective here? Are you saying that everybody who gave Clinton a pass is obligated to give Obama a pass too?

And is there a reason that you can't seem to accept that ANY Democratic president following this agenda and strategy would get tougher treatment than Obama did?

Why do you insist on saying "not fair, not fair, not fair", when there's no double standard here, but only a change in strategy?

I don't understand your objectives in starting your thread.

It's not as if the party would be in better shape now if everyone in it treated Obama exactly as they treated Clinton and the DLC.

[tkmorris]

19. There WERE objections. Plenty of them

But it is true that without the internet our ability to organize and discuss these issues was somewhat more limited.

[Overseas]

90. That's what I was thinking when Lawrence said that.

Yes there were objections. Lots of them.

But there was also pressure not to criticize our Democratic president too much.

Even though I hated the "New Democrats" who seemed to want to prove they were more adult and realistic by chipping away at Democratic programs.

When those "New Democrats" were upset about 5% Welfare fraud, I was thinking "What about the 95% that really need it?"

And those "New Democrats" made it easier for our mass media to be conglomerated into right wing hands.

They did a lot of damage.

They are still doing a lot of damage trying to prove to the corporate community that they can be almost as cruel as the deranged Republicans.

[okieinpain]

127. sure. n/t.

[sabrina 1]

60. Um, no, thanks for completely misinterpreting what I said.

There WERE objections to Clinton by many on the Left but without a place to express it, and the Left certainly had little access to the media back then, Laurence is pretending there was none. Because we can't go back and link to it.

He has actually pretty much blown his credibility by making that claim. I know people were furious over his Welfare Bill, eg, and anyone who was involved in politics was furious with many of his other policies. That is not hard to find even now, if Laurence wants to do a little research. However, he was under constant attack from the Right and that is what was most noticeable.

I'm surprised he hasn't called people who are critical of Democrats even considering destroying social safety nets 'the professional left'. Seems to me lately, there a definite 'professional DLC wing of the party willing to tolerate anything so long as it comes with a 'D' after its name, making them not much better than Bush fans.

[Autumn]

96. There were objections, the media didn't

cover it. They were busy chasing his penis or Hillary's terrible actions. So yeah, I would say had there been an internet he would have been given hell.

[joeybee12]

134. There WERE obnjections...people were pissed...

But you didn't have an outlet like the internet for it...sorry you don't get it? How old werer you then? Because you apparently missed a lot of what transpired during that time.

[LiberalAndProud]

93. Yes. I agree with both you and madfloridian.

I remember feeling so alone when Clinton betrayed us, and very isolated. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, and really believed, at the time, that I was one among few.

Thank God for DU and places like it.

[okieinpain]

126. black. n/t.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Larry has a short and selective memory

Clinton's various right wing policies cost Gore lots of votes. Clinton was not welcome on the campaign trail. Good lord.

[tsuki]

8. If it wasn't reported by the press back then, it did not happen.

[dsc]

15. to specificly address the medicare cuts

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10911.pdf

They were hospital cuts, not an increase in age. In short, he is telling more tales he likes.

[ecstatic]

28. Do you know what type of changes Pres Obama was referring to?

I didn't think so. Yet, that doesn't stop the cries of betrayal.

[dsc]

36. he has apparently

according to both democratic and gop sources agreed to raise the age. even O'Donnell has covered that on his very own show. That is a massive problem.

[elleng]

12. LO's memory is fine.

He recalls the prosperity that followed clinton's tax increases, and that Dems largely ignored or gave clinton's welfare moves the benefit of the doubt.

Gore distanced himself from Clinton; foolish decision. With him, Gore might have overcome the theft.

[still_one]

61. It was the internet bublble that allowed the prosperity, while a lot of what Clinton was doing was

efftively passing the deregulation and policies that started with reagan, and led to the financial melt down we are experiencing

[elleng]

69. Yes, to some extent deregulation had a lot to do with it.

Today's meltdown, however, more related to insidious effects of propaganda, which has been in the works since WWII at least. Deregulation began before reagan. Carter+ before.

[Ken Burch]

71. Clinton should have felt morally obligated to veto Glass-Stegall repeal

not FIGHT for it.

(Had DU existed in the late Nineties, I'd have started endless threads saying just that).

FDR knew in the Thirties that you can't trust banks to regulate themselves. Why would any Democratic president ever forget that?

[elleng]

77. Absolutely correct.

[still_one]

110. you are correct, which also correlates to the communication act. The one thing that can be said for

the Clinton administration is that for whatever reason the economy was doing so well, he didn't increase spending and lower taxes as the repukes did under bush, thus the deficit started to decrease under his administration

[elleng]

113. He instituted a 'pay as you go' (forget the name), forcing rationality WITH spending.

Yes, communication act too.

Thx

[baycityMI]

112. exactly!! couldn't ageree more!

[Ken Burch]

67. There was no good reason to give Clinton's welfare reforms the benefit of the doubt

They never had any intent or effect other than to punish the poor for being poor, and specifically to punish poor women for not feeling obligated to stay in bad or abusive marriages "for the sake of the children".

There was never any excuse for a Democratic president to join in the Republican demonization of the poor, especially the female poor. Why can't you admit that Clinton was wrong to even go there(especially since going after the poor didnt' even gain him any votes)?

[elleng]

74. Clinton was wrong in many ways.

Not my guy.

[CTyankee]

132. I believe it was because Clinton saw the whole welfare debate as an albatross

around the neck of the Democratic Party. He and other Dems thought that by getting rid of "welfare as we know it" a great obstacle to the Party going forward would be removed and no longer would the Party be susceptible to attack on it by the Republicans. Take a way the stick they beat us with. Well, of course, that was just one stick. The Republicans are even worse today and have come up with many more sticks to beat us with.

Now the stick is one that heavily involves old people. Unlike to poor, who couldn't fight back and had little in the way of support in Congress, the elderly CAN and WILL fight back. Fiercely.

If I sound cynical, it's because I am...

[Ken Burch]

135. You're probably right

And it sounds like a class struggle equivalent of George Wallace, after losing an early race for governor of Alabama on a moderate-to-liberal platform that included some support for the idea of racial equality, vowing that he'd "never get out-n_____ed again".

And your cynicism is justified.

All Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" strategy did was embolden the Reich-wingers even further. They realized that, if he'd fold on that, he'd fold on everything. And he did, the rest of the way in(creating a few more national parks for middle-class white folks with the money to travel doesn't make up for throwing the poor under the bus.)

[CTyankee]

136. Interesting what happened here in New Haven as a result of welfare reform by Clinton.

A group of progressive Yale law students managed to lure a supermarket chain to open a store in the middle of an inner city neighborhood (what we'd call a "food desert" today). It had two major purposes: one was of course fresher and more affordable food for residents and the other was for the training and employment of women in the neighborhood who had been negatively affected by the "reform." I was surprised to learn that it was the first such market in the country.

As it turned out, this store was closed because the chain's owner pulled out of CT entirely. All but this store and one other was taken over by other chains. However, Yale law students once again came into the picture. They persuaded, along with the city, another chain to take over the store and they hired lots of the employees who had worked in the first store...it was a nice thing. And it's a good store. And it's UNION!!!

[Ken Burch]

147. That's an interesting chain of events

I'm not sure why you see them as a result of welfare "reform".

Care to elaborate.

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Clinton

wasn't welcome on the campaign trail because he was IMPEACHED.

Good Lord, indeed.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Yeah, that's what it was.

The GOP manufactured that impeachment, and Democrats did not hold that against him. I spent that whole campaign trying to get Democrats sick of the centrist and right wing Clinton policies, the stinking compromises and the like, to vote for Gore anyway. So that is how it was. People were disgusted by NAFTA, 'welfare reform' and many other things.
Larry might be speaking of his own professional punditry class, I have no idea what the mainstream press was chattering about, I know what voters were saying and doing. I also know that without that disgust, Gore would have prevailed.

[LiberalAndProud]

98. Do you think Nader's message resonated because of that disgust?

He said what I was thinking.

Disclaimer: I did not vote for Nader, and it would not matter, in my state, if I had.

[Ken Burch]

143. Of course it did

There is a limit to how many betrays and how much disrespect a party can ask its supporters to accept. Past that limit, the party loses any right to ask its supporters to remain loyal. Bill Clinton and his allies in this party pushed past that limit all through the 1990's.

There was simply never any reason for the Democratic party to make punishing and tormenting liberals, labor, and the poor its organizing principle...and that punitive approach was what the DLC was all about(and remains what its successors in the Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Network and others like them are insisting on today. That was what Rahm Emmanuel was all about as DCCC chair and White House chief of staff).

Is it asking too much, at this late date, for our party leaders to finally STOP saying "you'll take 'Fuck You' and like it!" to the progressive wing of this party? It's not as if we ever did anything to actually deserve that treatment.

[okieinpain]

128. come on. clinton wasn't on the campaign trail because of a

blow job. matter of fact lots of experts say that's why gore lost because clinton wasn't on the road for gore. so that means he was really popular at that time and still is today.

[Ken Burch]

144. Clinton was all over campaigning for Kerry, and so was HRC.

Fat lot of good that did.

And have you noticed that most of the candidates Clinton stumps for(like the one for the Massachusetts Senate seat and all the ones in 2010)seem to end to losing?

[fascisthunter]

4. LO really a Liberal as he Claims...

...because he comes across as a centrist to me?

[ecstatic]

9. He's a socialist, but he also seems to be a realist

Calling out hypocrisy doesn't automatically make one a centrist.

[fascisthunter]

16. oh, ok

:spray:

[Ken Burch]

26. It's not hypocrisy to be tougher on Obama than some were on Clinton

It reflects the realization that it was wrong to let Clinton off the hook on everything.

What's your REAL point here, btw? Are you saying that if the progressive wing of the party gave Clinton a pass on everything that they're now OBLIGATED to give Obama the same pass? Why? What's wrong with re-evaluating the way the grassroots treats the president elected by the party after a careful analysis of mistakes in previous strategy?

What do you really want, here?

It's not legitimate to tell us that if we shut up then, we have to STAY shut up now.

[Ken Burch]

35. O'Donnell is a socialist? You got a cite for that?

n/t.

[jaxx]

87. He said it on his show too.

Politics

O'Donnell calls himself a "practical European socialist" in a Newsmaker Interview dated November 11, 2005.<22> On November 6, 2010, O'Donnell re-declared himself a socialist on the Morning Joe show. The MSNBC host stated, "nlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals ..." <23>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell

[gkhouston]

97. LOL. n/t

[jaxx]

99. LOL backatcha. Does that mean socialist is a wash out?

[gkhouston]

103. Not at all. It means that I'm skeptical that LO is actually a socialist.

He usually does an admirable job of sounding like a DLC'er, in my opinion. YMMV.

[jaxx]

104. Now I can LOL.

[ecstatic]

116. Because anyone who doesn't hate Obama couldn't possibly be

a liberal/socialist/progressive, right? What a simple-minded world view!

[gkhouston]

130. No. Take your mind off the Obama channel for a minute and listen to the way

O'Donnell talks about policies, both past and present. He sounds more like a centrist than a liberal/socialist/progressive, IMO.

[bluestate10]

138. LO supports all the program dreams that the typical run of the mill

socialist salivate over. If it squawks and walks like a duck, it surely must be a duck. Wouldn't a sane person conclude?

[bluestate10]

137. He has stated on his show several times.

He also wants universal health care coverage, free education for college students, massive investment in infrastructure and other societal changes. As the poster said, O'Donnell is a socialist, but he is also a realist.

[xchrom]

14. He claims it to avoid criticism.

'I am 'This' - but I support 'that' - cause that's all ever be had.

Several prominent DUers jump to mind w/ that weak logic.

[aquart]

24. Ah.You mean some DUers lack cement for brains.

That's a good thing.

[fascisthunter]

31. yeah... that's exactly why I was asking

not because of this one statement which I could care less about actually. He may have a point, I don't know because I wasn't paying attention to politics at that time, I was probably studying for exams in high school.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Correct! Gold star for you!

nt

[bluestate10]

139. Nothing like a easy out when a fastball is smoked by at 110mph.

Easier to go back to the dugout and complain about the coming post game meal than face the fact that pitches were un-hittable. Facts can ruin theories, LO has stated he is socialist several times and if one listens to his policy prescriptions, there is absolutely no reason to doubt him. It's just that he does not hate Obama and realizes that empowering republicans at the polls is lethal for socialist agendas and the nation's future.

[patrice]

20. Fair enough, so what kind of Socialist does that make him? nt

[xchrom]

6. I can not disagree w/ that.

Doesn't mean I support Medicare being on the table now.

Nor that I think Big Dog was a good democratic president.
As it turns out - he wasn't. Nor is Obama.

[ecstatic]

11. "As it turns out." At least you gave him a chance, which is a hell

of a lot more than can be said for how Pres. Obama is being treated.

[xchrom]

23. You misunderstand me. I think Obama is a neo-liberal.

What he wants for the country is mostly awful.

I give him some room in context re: the Big Dog.
Who was no better.

[Ken Burch]

53. It's not acceptable to say that we have to back whatever he does

Which is what you're demanding of us to prove that we're "giving him a chance".

If Medicare and SS are opened to change, the New Deal and all liberalism are dead. We can't recover from those things being put on the table. There can't BE a progressive politics in which reductions in benefits are accepted as the normal course of events.

[dsc]

7. O'Donnell is telling stories he likes and not the truth

I haven't watched tonight so I won't specificly address that, but last night he told a total howler. He said that after Clinton signed the Welfare Reform bill there was no protest from the left. That is, to be blunt, a gold carat lie. To name just one, rather famous protest, Peter Edelman who worked for Bill Clinton, and whose wife was a major mentor of Hillary, resigned his administration position and wrote a blistering op ed in the New York Times savaging Welfare reform. When O'Donnell tells you that the left didn't protest welfare reform he is lying to your face.

[sabrina 1]

13. I agree. I wasn't even involved in politics back then, but I remember

absolute outrage from many people I knew over many of Clinton's policies. I think Larry has a selective memory. I don't watch him mainly because of his snide, centrist rhetoric. And he's boring. And now we learn, not too factual.

[gkhouston]

78. +1. He likes a good story. And good stories aren't always factual. n/t

[Johonny]

111. I agree only a slim majority of Dems in congress voted for it

basically 50/50 in house, a little better in senate. Hardly the no one he makes it out to be. These were not popular with the Dems in Congress, I wonder why.

Congressional Vote Totals by Party
HOUSE
(7/31/1996)
Democrat

Republican

Independent
Yes
98

230

0
No
97

2

1
Not Voting
2

3

0
SENATE
(8/1/1996)
Democrat

Republican

Yes
25

53
No
21

0
Not Voting
1

0

[Ken Burch]

10. The Democratic party left of that era made the mistake, in general

of accepting the DLC meme that it was all OUR fault that the party had lost in 1980, '84, and '88, and that therefore we had no right to ask anything of anybody who actually won the White House as a Democrat. Too many of us just assumed we were obligated to suffer in silence the whole eight years. Others, in despair, started voting Green.

[rug]

17. Not in the senate as an aide, helping to draft the legislation.

[dameocrat67]

21. naders first run was in 96

so there were lots of people who objected. he just chooses to ignore it.

[dsc]

22. to specificly address medicare cuts

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10911.pdf

They were hospital cuts not an increase in age or a decrease in benefits. More stories O'Donnell likes.

[WinkyDink]

29. REALLY?? "Clinton....won in no small part because he drew a very hard line against Medicare cuts."

With Obama set to give a major speech on deficit reduction in response to Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposals, we keep hearing comparisons between the current historical moment and Bill Clinton’s mid-1990s standoff with Newt.

So maybe we should recall the forgotten lesson of Clinton’s victory: He won in no small part because he drew a very hard line against Medicare cuts, and used that battle to articulate an expansive vision of Democratic governance, which he contrasted with the GOP’s vision of a “winner-take-all society.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/learning-the-right-lessons-from-clintons-medicare-battle-with-newt/2011/03/03/AFHZwvLD_blog.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/966155/-Clinton-And-Medicare:-A-REAL-Line-In-The-Sand
Few remember this part of the story, but Waldman notes that Clinton seized on the Medicare standoff to reaffirm his support for the social contract as embodied in Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare promise to America, frequently referring to proposals to cut Medicare as an affront to our “values.” Clinton even used Johnson’s pen to veto the GOP’s budget.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/16/us/gop-s-plan-to-cut-medicare-faces-a-veto-clinton-promises.html?pagewanted=3
President Clinton said today that he would veto the Republicans' legislative package for Medicare and Medicaid. He said that their proposals for large savings in the Government health plans for the elderly and the poor would have "Draconian consequences" and would "dismantle Medicare as we know it."

Speaking to elderly people at the White House just 24 hours after House Republicans outlined their proposals, Mr. Clinton said, "If these health care cuts come to my desk, of this size, I would have no choice but to veto it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[sabrina 1]

106. I think you should make that an OP. It sounds like LOD is

trying to rewrite history.

[Hotler]

121. +1 n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

30. Don't believe for a minute that there was not an outcry.

Many of us were pissed, and many of us were telling every legislator and Clinton that this was unacceptable. As usual, it did not matter. And we were again dismissed because of the exact same reasons we have today---the seniors were told that this would not affect them, it would only change for future beneficiaries. And of course, the older people are the ones they court since they are the ones who vote most regularly (or so we are told).

The only thing that I will say is that we should have taken to the streets, protested, and made a bigger stink.

[NorthCarolina]

76. That's all fine and dandy, but the truth is not generally easy to ridicule when it comes to the left

It's far better to state a fact that you just made up, and then proceed to rant about it. If someone doesn't agree with the made up fact, then they must of course be a republican infiltrator, or are simply not "with the majority" and therefore can be labelled a fringe looney.

[Curmudgeoness]

84. You're kidding? What part do you propose is made up?

You make is sound as if every Dem was totally in love with Clinton and everything that he did. That was not the case, and if you don't know about Dems who had problems with some of Clinton's policies, that does not make people who do remember liars.

[NorthCarolina]

86. The part that states there was NO outcry from the left.

That's the made up part. But if the OP had gone with the truth, as you pointed out, that there was a public outcry from the Left, it wouldn't have made for much of a slam against Liberals and the Left.

[plumbob]

32. The left was right here, and we helped defeat the Health Security Act,

a huge mess of a bill, and embedded in it was a proposal to slow the growth in Medicare from 9% in the next three years to 6%.

It all went down in flames, and nothing actually happened. I was one of the people hollering and screaming for single payer universal, just like I am now.

OK?

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Clinton made the only major CUTBACK modifications to the Social Security act and amendments

And he did so proudly and trumpeted his achievement.

Short memories indeed.

Or other factors at work...the same sort that let Clinton cut welfare with barely an "ahem."

[dsc]

40. yeah barely an ahem

There was a resignation from his administration directly attributed to that bill. That would be Peter Edelman who not only worked for Bill but was married to one of Hillary's best friends. He also wrote an editorial at that time stating why. But of course, since that isn't now, it didn't happen.

[Ken Burch]

75. You're right, dsc.

This IS nothing but a "you have no right to criticize" call-out thread, and should be shut down as a violation of DU rules. If someone had used the same tactics to make an anti-Obama point, it WOULD have been shut down by now.

[Ken Burch]

41. So if Clinton was given a pass on everything, we have to give Obama a pass, too?

Why is it that some people can't accept that the reason Obama's getting tougher treatment is simply that the grassroots realizes it was WRONG to give Clinton a pass. And that we'd be just as tough if anybody else was a Democratic president and doing the same things?

What purpose does it serve to say that it's hypocritical to be tough on Obama if you weren't tough on Clinton? Besides, there were some of us back then who WERE tough on Clinton...we just weren't getting media attention.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Of course not

But context is often telling.

[Ken Burch]

50. Dear God...not "context" again...

What does "context is often telling" even mean?

What are those of you that are supporting the OP asking of those who are critical of Obama?

This whole thread sounds like it's about setting up a bogus "people are only going after Obama because he's black" narrative. You would agree that such an argument is totally demagogic and out-of-bounds, would you not?

[amborin]

73. Clinton raised the taxes due on Soc Sec payments for married making > 44K yearly

[Ken Burch]

34. It's because progressives realized that they were wrong to give Clinton a pass

It isn't unfair to Obama at all...especially when he TOLD us to hold his feet to the fire.

You can't seriously be arguing that we should be treating Obama now like some of us treated Clinton then. That's a bullshit analysis. Most of the reason that Obama is given tougher treatment is that the Clinton era proved that it doesn't work to just trust these guys.

It's not as if the party would be in better shape now if Obama was given the same deference as Clinton was then. And we be just as much tougher on a white Democratic president who's doing the same things. We'd all damn sure be saying the same stuff if Hilary was president. And you know it.

This is just a passive-aggressive call-out thread and serves no real purpose.

[bluestate10]

140. Will progressives now admit that they fucked up in Florida 2000 and gave us Junior?

The rest is sad history. History that President Obama is working with all his might to clean up.

[EFerrari]

37. Workers March to Protest Medicare and Medicaid Cutbacks

By IAN FISHER
Published: November 03, 1995

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/03/nyregion/workers-march-to-protest-medicare-and-medicaid-cutbacks.html?pagewanted=1

The cuts didn't come until two years later but yes, there were people on their feet then, too.

I wouldn't try to lean history from Lawrence O'Donnell

[dsc]

47. It is one thing when the teens and twenty somethings who post here

get their history wrong but for O"Donnell it is clearly him lying to our faces.

[EFerrari]

52. It shows a kind of contempt for your audience to pull this shit. n/t

[JHB]

43. Methink's LO's memory is a tad slelctive...

...or maybe he was too busy ignoring "the left" to notice.

[chill_wind]

54. Seems so!

[still_one]

63. Clinton pushed the deregulation accross the line, that the repukes had been trying to accomplish for

years

[ProSense]

45. Well,

it appears the "I never thought I'd live to see the day a Democratic President attack the New Deal" sentiments overlooked that Clinton did it.

Dean Baker, May 2011: Bill Clinton, Who's Known for His Plan to Cut Social Security

President Obama should not emulate Clinton.

[Marr]

48. Oh-- now he's actually discussing it? I thought it was all just "rope a dope".

[EFerrari]

55. The story changes every day. LOL

[Marr]

58. But it's always "brilliant".

:D

[Enrique]

66. great point

:thumbsup:

[gkhouston]

80. Dopes were roped.

It's just that the hemp's location was imperfectly estimated. :smoke:

[chill_wind]

49. Where was O'Donnell when Ted K got Clinton supported SS cuts off the table?

Dean Baker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=612538&mesg_id=612634

More from Baker
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/bill-clinton-whos-known-for-his-plan-to-cut-social-security

In an article reporting on how the Republicans are backing away from the Ryan plan for privatizing Medicare. the NYT quoted former President Bill Clinton on the need to cut Medicare spending. Mr. Clinton was speaking a daylong conference of the deficit sponsored by Wall Street investment banker Peter Peterson.

It would have been worth reminding readers that Clinton is a big proponent of cuts to Social Security. At the deficit conference that Peterson sponsored last year, Clinton boasted that he had wanted to cut Social Security but congressional leaders from both parties blocked him. The cuts that he wanted would have reduced benefits by approximately 1 percent a year. This means that retirees in their 70s, 80s, or 90s, would be getting almost 15 percent less in Social Security benefits today, if President Clinton had gotten his way.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Screaming about the duopolistic asshats in power?

[still_one]

56. I would like to remind lawrence O, that the left was upset with a lot bill clinton did. He cut

welfare, signed NAFTA, singed the bill to repeal glass steagal(sic), signed the communication act of 2000, allowed for mass mergers and less competition.

Maybe people don't remember, but I do, and at that time a lot of progressives were calling clinton the best republican the Democrats elected

[Marr]

65. Yeah-- I seem to recall the running joke being that he was the best Republican president we'd

ever had-- and it was not meant as a compliment.

So we get a collection of DLC Democrats into power who make a point of ignoring the left, then ten years later, they say you have no right to complain about Medicare cuts because they aren't aware that you were angry about it last time.

That's some pretty damned weird reasoning.

[Ken Burch]

70. Clearly, if Clinton had been primaried in '96, we'd have lost nothing.

ANY Democrat could have beaten "Bob Dole Bob Dole"-even one who didn't persecute the poor.

We COULD have won on our core values.

[Blasphemer]

57. Clinton was facetiously called "The best Republican President we've ever had"

There were strong objections to some of his policies. However, the economy was doing well which dampened the criticism. Also, he was under constant attack by the GOP - like nothing seen before and nothing that his been seen since. To some degree, he was readily defended as a counterpoint to a GOP that was completely and utterly determined to bring him down. I am always amazed by those who bring race into the mix when discussing critiques of Obama. I have to imagine they were not following politics very closely between 1992 and 2000. Obama has it very easy compared to Clinton. It's one thing to want to defeat an opponent and facilitate the end of his Presidency. It's another thing entirely to have a rabid desire to completely ruin a man and his family in every way imaginable. Obama has to deal with the former. Clinton had to deal with the latter.

[JVS]

59. The thing about triangulation is that it lets you avoid criticism by betraying the people...

for whom you're supposed to be the voice. That's the whole point of it.

[Ken Burch]

64. The other thing is, a lot of us were CALLING for much stronger pressure to be put on Clinton

And there were protests when he signed the National Poor People Can Fuck Off And Die Act(aka "Welfare Reform").

Perhaps there wasn't as much protest, but there were some who spoke out.

And it's not fair to argue that, if you didn't speak out then, you have no right to now.

If you say that, you're basically saying that people have no right to change their strategies and grow in awareness with the passage of time.

(You also sound like some of the Likudnik posters in the Israel/Palestine forum, but that's another discussion...)

Just tell us...what, as opposed to what progressives are doing now, would you consider an ACCEPTABLE progressive response to what Obama has been implying he'll do on Medicare and Social Security?

[bullwinkle428]

68. This is all about O'Donnell's ego battle with Keith Olbermann.

KO made a powerful special comment the other day, trying to warn Obama of the dangers of even discussing cuts in SS, Medicare, & Medicaid, so LO had to take the polar opposite position in his little bizarro world scenario.

[Major Hogwash]

100. That's what I think is going on, too.

Everyone knows that we didn't elect Obama to run right out there and touch the 3rd rail.
And if he does, he's going to get zapped.
That's all there is to it.
And whether he was a good President or not, he will be a one-termer, no doubt about it.

O'Donnell could never find anything wrong with Clinton before tonight.
So, by saying "well, look at what Bubba did back then", doesn't make the case that touching the 3rd rail in today's climate is going to be successful at all.
In fact, it hurts his case.

[ecstatic]

117. KO is a joke

He doesn't even vote, much less have the background knowledge that LO does.

[sabrina 1]

129. Have to disagree. The reason I don't watch LO is because he

has always been obvious about his right-leaning positions, and that is why he has to keep telling us he's a Liberal. KO is far more factual, LO way too emotional in what he thinks is his subtle way of putting down the 'left' or whatever he views people who support the Democratic Party's actual platform as.

And he's boring. I guess he's trying to up his ratings, but I doubt it will work. DLCers will watch him, most progressives will be watching KO.

[bluestate10]

141. I agree most on KO being a joke. Never before have I seen intellect like that

so wasted. Has KO had that dumb motherfucker Hamsher on his show yet?

[myrna minx]

72. LOL - he apparently doesn't remember the 1990's.

I remember the outrage over "Welfare Reform", NAFTA, the telecommunications act, DOMA etc. That's some selective memory.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124295/

I think a nice refresher on the 1990's is in order. Please watch Michael Moore's "The Big One" again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Geeeze

Pretty lame Lawrence. Besides the fact that there was opposition to Clinton then on that, the left along with the rest of America had just come out from under 12 years of Reagan Bush, just calling himself a Democrat earned Clinton a little good will back then. And it was during Clinton's Administration the the Republican Party started going whacko with hate talk against the President and endless investigations - that of course ended up with Impeachment. That too was something new to absorb.

The main point though is that Bill Clinton revitalized the Democratic Left because he proved to many that the National Democratic Party could no longer be trusted to act like liberals. We have been working on how to effectively apply that lesson ever since.

[bvar22]

81. I don't know where Larry O was...probably at a cock,tail party

but I and the REAL FDR/LBJ Democrats was RAGING about the sell out to the Corporations,
from NAFTA all the way to Welfare Reform.

Where do you think the title Best Republican President EVER came from?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[SolutionisSolidarity]

83. This country needs more than another Clinton administration.

I remembered Wall St deregulation, welfare reform, the telecommunications act, and a whole host of serious errors of judgement that caused the country a great deal of harm in the long run. That's why I voted for Obama in the primary when it came down to him versus Hillary. I suppose the fact that the Democratic primaries came down to a choice between two neo-liberals was less an accident than design.

[OHdem10]

85. Repealed Welfare--Part of LBJs war on Poverty.

This is why the Republicans act as they do. They know
no one is going to fight back.

[CelticThunder]

88. No difference from me. I despise them both for being Republican kiss-asses.

[TheKentuckian]

89. Probably because that isn't true and many of those that were hands off were learning a lesson.

The mixture of dishonesty and a call to refuse to learn a hard lesson is disconcerting regarding Lawrence.

MSNBC is swinging establishment.

[defendandprotect]

91. Clinton is no hero here .. .but if Clinton was bad, does that make Obama good?

Clinton destroyed 60 years of Welfare guarantees --

with a "nod" from Al Gore!!

Among other things -- like trade agreements which have been responsible for

job losses here and which should be overturned by today's Dems!

Obama has now moved on THREE new trade agreements -- !!!

[Major Hogwash]

102. I was trying to think today what to say about it.

And I think that Obama's #1 bumper sticker for his 2012 re-election should be --

"Eat your peas."

I don't think they'll actually make that bumper sticker, but if they did, I would get 2.

LoL

I live in Boise, Idaho, and I never saw but a handful of McCain/Palin bumper stickers.
It makes me wonder if they printed very many, or if they just decided to save the money and only printed a few.
You can't find a car driving around here now that has a McCain or a Bush bumper sticker on it.
But, back in 2005, if your car didn't have a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on it in the parking lot at the grocery store, there were 25 others that did.
Sometimes they would all be parked in a row, one after another, with each car sporting that damned bumper sticker.
It was like walking past all of the cars on a military base that have to sport that military base sticker on the vehicle's rear bumper.
Almost all of them had bumper stickers on them back then.

Now, not a one.
I haven't seen a car with an old Bush/Cheney bumper sticker for almost 2 years.
And, like I said, seeing a McCain/Palin bumper sticker was as rare as spotting a deer run down one of the streets downtown in Boise.
Oh sure, it happens once every other blue moon, but still it's a rare event.

[defendandprotect]

125. "Eat your peas" ... ???

Well glad to hear that Boise, Idaho is moving to the left ---

but unfortunately, destroying Social Security and Medicare has always been a

GOP goal -- part of the rw agenda --

[WorseBeforeBetter]

92. Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, Democracy Now! ...

there's plenty of criticism to be found, if you (and Lawrence) bothered to Google. Here, I'll get you started:

Clinton's Medicare Cuts
Bill in '93 = Bob in '96
http://www.slate.com/id/2082/

Democracy Now! Exclusive Interview with President Bill Clinton (it ain't pretty...)
http://www.democracynow.org/2000/11/8/democracy_now_exclusive_interview_with_president

For someone "too young to remember," it's curious that you think you know what was going on during the Clinton years. This might help:

MediKill
http://motherjones.com/politics/1996/01/medikill

1999 globalization protests in Seattle:



Yeah, where were those nasty ol' leftists?! Paying attention to something other than a stained blue dress, that's where.

[Karmadillo]

94. Damn it! Stop that! LO's trying to make a point and you're messing him up with facts.

"Facts are stupid things," as the now esteemed Ronald Reagan liked to point out.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

101. Lawrence is set for retirement and senior health care. Why these other dummies have jumped on...

the bandwagon is beyond me. I doubt they're independently wealthy and hanging out on DU. Do they stand to inherit beaucoup bucks? Is their retirement plan winning the lottery? Or are they so ga-ga over a charismatic leader that they'll suck up an $8.50/hr Walmart greeter job well into their golden years, just as long as Obama "wins." Pensions are a thing of the past. Many don't understand the basic concept of "risk" when investing, let alone the vagaries of the stock market.

Who *are* these people? It makes no sense.

[Karmadillo]

105. In an overt class war, one would think the losing side would not root enthusiastically

for the winning side. I have relatives who would have died years earlier without Social Security and Medicare. Obama's repeated, gratuitous efforts to put these core Democratic programs on the block are simply bizarre. "Strengthen" them once and you know politicians down the road will be back at it trying to "strengthen" them again and again. Cut defense, tax the rich, create jobs programs when necessary, give the children a genuine education as so many other industrial nations are able to do, and have the decency to provide adequate social programs. How hard is that?

[Forkboy]

109. "Paying attention to something other than a stained blue dress, that's where."

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Lawrence you do know that many in the left

were in the streets, and that Gore had a hell of a time getting those people to vote for him, right?

[Honeycombe8]

107. I don't remember that. I'll have to look that up to refresh my memory. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

114. "MediScare 1996" returns some interesting results.

Yet the OP couldn't be bothered.

[meow mix]

108. ah yes... criticize the left while apologizing for rightwing policy

still following orders.. LO the fraud

[fascisthunter]

115. After reading through this thread I realize LO is a SHill of the DLC

and his insistance that he is a socialist or liberal is GARBAGE. His effort to rewrite history is what makes me doubt who he claims to be.

[ecstatic]

119. The DLC isn't even around anymore

Seriously, you people sound delusional when you say things like that.

[jtown1123]

120. It's Third Way now. Same thing, different name.

[fascisthunter]

122. yeah... did they get nervous about us dems finding out what they were about?

So is it, New dems, Third Way dems, Centrists, Pragmatists... you knew exactly who I was talking about.

First thing out of your mouth as a reply was an insult. You know what I'm talking about ecstatic... neo-liberal policies... do you know what they are? Hmmm?

I don't buy bs from people trying to rewrite history, and I sure as hell will not take you serious for posting the garbage.

PS - 4 recs... who is the delusional one?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

124. Says she, who admits in her OP, that she has no clue...

as to what went on during the '90s.

"You people." Tsk.

[EFerrari]

131. Yes, they are only rebranded. Seriously, it's delusional to believe

they just went away.

[jtown1123]

118. B/c Dems get a free pass on these things unfortunately.

[Fuzz]

123. Personally, I was saying it was the first time I voted for a Republican.

[Rex]

133. Because we weren't in a Great Depression like we are now?

Just my guess.

[MadHound]

142. Where was Lawrence when the left was taking Clinton to task for it?

<http://www.slate.com/id/2082/>
<http://www.democracynow.org/1997/1/24/clinton_proposes_cuts_to_medicare>
Hey, Lawrence, perhaps you need to do a bit of digging next time?

[democracy1st]

145. one thing about Lawrence he's no true progressive,he just plays one on tv!

[Cool Logic]

146. He's not a very good actor either.

:boring: