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: Dale Baker who wrote (140155)	7/2/2010 1:27:09 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 542918

These bumbling efforts at ODS are getting sillier and sillier, but folks buy into it. That's clearly what's going on when we get these one liners. The serious comparisons actually require some netting out of lots and lots of stuff.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (140155)	7/2/2010 2:09:35 PM
From: Paul Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542918

Clinton never had a majority of popular votes The 1992 and 1996 races had three candidates. Without Perot, Clinton may have lost in 1992 (maybe not), but he still would have won with ease in 1996. How cold Clinton be more skilled when Obama got healthcare passed and Clinton utterly failed? Clinton did not have 69-70 Senators on his team. Clinton seemed to be able to make effective adjustments and seemed to command more respect overseas than Obama does. I think Obama is learning and perhaps his skills will evolve over time. Clinton had the big advantage of coming into the job with more practical experience than Obama did. If Obama fails to get re-elected, obviously Clinton will be seen as much more successful. Krugman seems to be arguing that unless Obama listens to him, his presidency is doomed to total failure. I do not think Krugman is correct and also do not think Obama will follow his advice.