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: Paul Smith who wrote (140163)	7/2/2010 2:27:07 PM
From: Paul Smith	Respond to of 542936

In previous message, meant 59-60, not "69-70"

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140163)	7/2/2010 2:32:58 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542936

Clinton did not have 69-70 Senators on his team. Nor does Obama; at the highwater mark he had 60. Super majorities are a big problem but let's not ratchet the score any higher than it is. But, even if the figures are correct, you haven't addressed the difference in the Rep parties. The one Clinton faced was actually interested in governing, at least in the senate; this one, the one Obama faces, has no interest in policy making only grabbing power. Clinton seemed to be able to make effective adjustments and seemed to command more respect overseas than Obama does. Do you have some polls from 1994 that would suggest this? Obama's polls outside the US have been phenomenal, to say the least. I don't recall Clinton's. But my guess is that, at the comparable point in his presidency, there were not nearly as good. Clinton had the big advantage of coming into the job with more practical experience than Obama did. True. But Clinton's first year in office was far more turbulent and badly managed than Obama's.