Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (59830)	4/17/2008 10:15:36 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 542218

So far, I have not heard your guy say that he has the same understanding that you and I have about Reagan and his revolution. He even said some nice things about him and at the same time refused to acknowledge that Clinton succeeded in contrast to Reagan. I may not recall that comment all that accurately but here it is. Obama said something to the effect that Reagan brought new ideas into the political realm, ones which changed the political culture. And he hoped to change the political culture himself. Now, no doubt that's not right on perfect. But say that's in the general ballpark. I wouldn't argue with that at all. Including the exclusion of Clinton. Clinton did much good. But one thing he did not do was to change the political culture Reagan had helped create. And that was my biggest disappointment with the guy. He had the political wisdom/knowledge/whatever to do it, far in excess of Reagan. And he had the commensurate political charm to persuade. But not only did he not change it, by 1994 he was not even trying. I voted for Clinton both times and could be heard, rather loudly, defending him in all sorts of quarters. Even with my disappointments. I'm afraid my defense will be a bit more muted after the last few months. Theda Skocpol, the Harvard sociologist whose work I admire, and who was as big a Clinton admirer during the 90s as was possible. And who edited a book with Stan Greenberg celebrating Clintonian politics. Skocpol wrote another piece today about her feelings about Bill and Hillary. Her last two paragraphs strikes me as right on, as they say. I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap. It is particularly despicable of them to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House. And I cannot help but feel there is a psychological edge of pure envy in Bill Clinton's attacks: Obama is empathetic and charismatic as well as smart, just like Bill was back then, in those so much better days! Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer. tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (59830)	4/18/2008 3:16:10 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542218

>>So far, I have not heard your guy say that he has the same understanding that you and I have about Reagan and his revolution. He even said some nice things about him and at the same time refused to acknowledge that Clinton succeeded in contrast to Reagan.<< Mary - That's a misinterpretation of what Obama said about Reagan. He said that Reagan transformed politics in a way that Clinton did not. He was not making a statement about the relative merit of their policies. What he was talking about was the way Reagan got a bunch of Democrats to cross over and vote for him. They even got the name Reagan Democrats, and they lasted long past Reagan's presidency. Clinton did not get Republicans to vote for him. There are no Clinton Republicans. - Allen