E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAs one of us wrote earlier this week, frantic projections of President Barack Obama’s vulnerability don't quite give enough weight to some key poll numbers. While the president is still upside-down with swing voters, whites, and independents, his approval ratings remain strong among his core Democratic constituencies: young voters, blacks, liberal Democrats, and women.
This afternoon, the president is huddling with another leader who earned the ire of the liberal wing of the Democratic party and found himself the target of primary-challenge speculation: Bill Clinton.
So, we dusted off the record books and took a look at how some of the same core groups viewed Clinton in the months after the mid-90s midterm shellacking of the Democratic Party.
According to a NBC/WSJ poll taken in December 1994, Clinton enjoyed slightly better approval ratings overall than Obama does now, with 48 percent approving and 44 disapproving. (Obama is currently 47-47, according to the most recent NBC/WSJ survey.)
Obama’s rating with liberals, at least as of the latest pre-tax-cut-kerfuffle poll in November -- is even higher than Clinton’s; the former president won a thumbs up from 70 percent of liberals, while Obama gets a positive rating from 79 percent.
Obama’s approval among black voters is slightly higher than Clinton’s was as well. Ninety percent of blacks approve of how the nation’s first African American commander-in-chief is doing his job, while 81 percent approved of the man tongue-in-cheekily referred to as “the first black president" in '94.
Clinton clocked in with a net positive of 10 points among young voters; Obama is at +7. The two leaders also shared similar levels of enthusiasm among self-described Democrats.
While the data shows that both Clinton and Obama retained strong support from the Democratic base after their party ended up on the wrong side of a wave election, Clinton’s relative resilience with independents and whites makes Obama’s deficit with those groups seem striking.
Even after the 1994 Republican Revolution, Clinton kept a slight advantage among independent voters, with 44 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving. But last month, Obama was 10 points upside-down with indies, 41-51.
Among whites, Clinton’s approval was slightly underwater in 1994, 44 percent to 47 percent.
That number for Obama now? Minus 17 points.
Leave a Comment:
Watch some ingorant mouse-turd bring up Monica and sex in 3..2...1......
No need to wait for another mouse turd...you brought it up!...:)
Way to preempt "them"...
Actually, as soon as I posted this one, I posted one that said "I mean some OTHER mouse turd", and it didn't post.
But- Point taken, Dangerfied.
Quite amazing, isn't it? Obama came into office, a self made man, a man that would be non-partisan, the greatest intellect ever to assume the office, a thoughtful man with the answers to the most difficult issues of the day. A leader. A visionary.
Now he's being compared to Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and in not so good ways. He's being called one of the most partisan Presidents ever to assume the office. He makes deals with the Republican party only to come out in TWO press conferences telling us how much he hates the deal and that the Republicans are "holding Americans hostage" (those words didn't exactly sound thoughtful, now did they?) And now Obama is having a parade of ex-Presidents come in and give him counsel.
The training wheels may never come off for Obama.
"While the president is still upside-down with swing voters, whites, and independents, his approval ratings remain strong among his core Democratic constituencies: young voters, blacks, liberal Democrats, and women."
The irony is that the young voters are the very ones that will have to pay the price (interest, less growth and high unemployment) that will result from Obama's wild spending spree. Even Obama's very optimistic projections show the National Debt mushrooming to over $25 Trillion within 9 years. If he doesn't cut spending drastically, it will be closer to $40 Trillion.
I guess youthful idealism trumps realism when you are young, until pragmatism catches up, and they realize the folly of their youth. That's why people tend to become more conservative as they get older - and wiser.
Great liberal comment, drive by. I mean, you hurled your compulsory insult before you even knew who you were insulting......priceless!
But- as long as I can insult 'mice-elf' along with the other mouse-turds, why would YOU care?
I may be a lib-tard, but at least I ain't no uppity lib-tard without a sense of humor.
But I AM curious about one thing. What makes the mouse-turd comment a specifficaly 'liberal' comment? It's as though I'm implying any negative comments about Clinton are automaticaly 'conservative' ones, somehow. But- that couldn't be right, could it??
Actually...
With the President's compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers...
Obama's behavior is starting to look very, very familiar...
Wonder if Bill offered a cigar to obama? OUCH!!!
Act2
Wonder if Bill offered a cigar to obama? OUCH!!!
...and the mouse-turd goes to!...
Congratulations on your exceptional (and I do mean "exceptional") reading comprehension...:)
Sorry, I had a blue dress moment. Did he ever figure what the definition of "is" is??
Once is ignorance...twice?
Congratulations! You really deserve your mouse-turd...
Whenever a republican starts making clinton jokes, just start asking them why their "incest" alternatives are better. Or sleazy cover ups with the local pastors. Apparently they think its illegal to demonize a politician that criticizes infidelity even through they're doing it too.
Well James, that's because it isn't really about the things that Conservatives claim to be all about. It's about winning. Double standards and outright hypocrisy are par for the course.
I agree, it's always been strictly about winning. The hypocrisy and double standards arguments could go back and forth for days
Obama is getting all this BS simply for the same reasons Carter stated much earlier on - deny it if you wish but its all BS...no white president has ever faced such opposition and blatant disrespect - and yet we forget what Bush did---but oh yeah he had to F-up the economy, put us in a meaningless war and make even the white man starve.. before anyone would get rid of him (but vote for him 2x) and because one of the most intelligent presidents we've had in over 8 years can not fix all the F-ups in 2 years , you brainless idiots vote the same party that put us in this mess back into power - U deserve the worst this bunch can dish out to you. - maybe more layoffs and wars and out of control housing and finance market maybe when u can not even feed yourself and your family - you'll want actual change that doesnt come quickly - after almost a decade of f'ing up the economy
mindinthought bla bla bla yada yada yada we have heard this bull for way to long, when repubs forced clinton and the dems to play fair the ecomomy grew and the defecit went down. it may do just the same now notice I said may not that it would we both will have to wait for that. you can hold this to heart if it doesnt then not only will the repubs loose agian they will loose big time America put repubs in office for the same reasons they put obama there to effect change, change they didnt get so time to try it agian. maybe they will get the message and actually fix the problem because if they dont we will vote them out.
I don't see a GOP congress doing anything that would improve things on Obama's watch. It is totally impossible to improve things without the incumbent laying claims to most if not all of them. I do think spending will be curtailed to some extent but it serves Republicans for things to further deteriorate in terms of the economy and employment. Congress will not allow it to reach a crisis stage but by the same token it will not allow improvement to the extent that Obama can lay any claim to it. And if voters such as yourself start targeting congress with threat of "voting them out," you will have placed the blame on congress, not the White House, and that plays to Obama's favor. Me thinks you have voted out as many as you can comfortably expect. All members of the House ran for re-election in 2010 ~ and how many incumbents were re-elected? I'm not saying you are without recourse, but the one you seem to suggest is chancy, at best, and very lame at its worst.
I do blame the white house and their time will come in 2012. By voting them out we show them that they work for us, once they figure that out we start benifiting from it. This not going to happen over night or with one election. If they want to keep their jobs they will have no choice but do it right.
Jesus Christ, isn't it enough that you scumbags litter our email inbins with your bull@!$%#, now you have to invade out social web links. Could someone please do a DDOS on these @!$%#s? Please. I vote we just cut China and India off the WEB, who needs 'em.
So RMC, who do you blame for the first six years of Bush's term? Are you like most other conservatives who blame Clinton, or would you say that it was the conservative congress who magically improved the Bush Seniors less than stellar Economy which by most indicators began to improve before they even entered office or at least before any major policies passed. And now that the Economy in terms of GDP, investor behavior, unemployment stabilization and jobs momentum, as well as others has been slowly improving and building momentum, it seems as though the conservatives will try to take credit for this as well. Give it a break. Bush crashed our economy and without Obama's spending initiatives our unemployment could have hit the same levels they hit at the end of Reagan's second year, which of course was Democrats fault as well. According to the CBO, often cited by the very party you defend, Unemployment could have reached above 12%. Imagine what that could have done for our GDP, for our revenue, for our budget and our deficit.
Roy....
In my state they passed a law that now allows 17 year old children to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the November election. What's next...allow 16 year olds to vote in elections as long as they will be turning 18 before the candidate's first term is half over ???
The voters who are increasing in numbers are the voters who do not help to pay the tab. In our state, the governor's race was decided by 7000 votes. The guy who won had a 70,000 vote margin in the state's six poorest cities, where he drew about 80% of the votes. There were 1.2 million votes cast. That 70,000 vote margin is just about impossible to overcome.
I do not know why any Republican candidate would ever choose to fight that battle when the odds will be so highly stacked against him or her.
Most of the more economically successful communities in our state voted for the loser in this election.
So we now will continue to have a state government put into place by voters who are not paying the bills...and those never ending and growing bills will be paid by the voters who did not support the politician now asking them for their money.
We mouse turds are offended by your ocmment...just sayin'
Joanna how does one "assume" the office of presidency, and I'll cut to the chase, what is his vision ?? and a non partisan. yeah right Obama care was non partisn,, and you were serious about what you said about him werent you...
Active Army "So RMC, who do you blame for the first six years of Bush's term?"
Blame for what? The 38% increase in economic growth, or the 7 million net new jobs REALLY created in Bush's first 6 years?
Of course, the Democrats took over Congress and the legislative and spending agenda in the 2006 elections, and the rest is history.
But last month, Obama was 10 points upside-down with indies, 41-51.
The left doesn't want President Obama reaching out to independents in order to try and get re-elected. Evidently he has to rise or fall with the left only. Either do what we say or you're history!!!!
Did Bill Clinton ever face that when in the White House?
I.don't.think.so. They liked him, warts & compromises & all.
President Obama, no. They won't stand for it.
I don't know why. You should ask them. Someone should.
Rubbish. Obama has spent the last two years reaching out to conservatives and has faced a wall of no. All progressives want from Obama is to stand up those who have only two goals, tax breaks for the rich and defeat of Obama.
All progressives want from the President is a "do-over"...
It's time to unsubscribe: I'm a Fed Up Progressive.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/7/926778/-Its-time-to-unsubscribe:Im-a-Fed-Up-Progressive.
President Clinton was attorney general and 2X governor of a state before being elected president, and had a track record that folks could look at and that clearly showed him to be a moderate/centrist/triangulator. His governing philosophy and core beliefs were clear to his supporters and his opponents alike, and his move to the center post '94 mid-terms was consistent and within the general parameters of who he was perceived as being. Perhaps that is why...
Obama has not changed his policy positions since the campaign. He still believes and advocates for the same things he did then. Where his problem has been is in what he has been able to actually get done. Hard to accomplish a lot of compromise when the other side refuses to compromise. Thus a lot of the things he promised during the campaign he just hasn't been able to get through.
Like what?
Even Obama says he "Gotta alot done" in his first 2 years. I'll even reference the Liberals most favorite web site that (surprisingly) agrees with Obama:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003
The problem isn't that Obama hasn't accomplished anything. He's accomplished plenty. Plenty of things most people disagree with.
Heartlight3
Obama has not changed his policy positions since the campaign
Um...
http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_tax_reform.htm
Get back to me on that after you do a little reading...
Even Obama says he "Gotta alot done" in his first 2 years.
I think that was actually Chico Marx...of course he WAS a Marxist!
What other side heartlite??? He has had a majority in the house and senate since he has occupied the office. Please explain your liberal mantra dribble!
dangerfield-
I'm a conservative not generally inclined to support Obama on much of anything...
BUT, he's the only President we've got for at least the next two years, and I've gotta admit...his willingness to do a compromise deal with Congressional Republicans surprised me.
It probably surprised them as well...which might account for the fact that they got $125 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and breaks in the estate tax, while Obama got the rest of this $900 billion bill.
And trust me, dangerfield...
If this passes, the new Republican Congress isn't going to be dancing in the streets at the prospect of nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit spending...even though at least half of it involves the extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts. Obama's been dying to get some additional stimulus spending and he got it.
Congressional Democrats are idiots.
No wonder the House is gone.
And it looks like we have a new President:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/10/obama_ditches_tax_cut_presser_after_bill_clinton_takes_control.html
I wonder if the reporters in the crowd addressed Bill as "Mr. President"? Oh gosh, they did! Uncomfortable . . . . .
So we got one retired old guy President apparently calling the shots, while the other one, who we think is the current President running off to a party, leaving old guy there to answer questions on the current administrations policy. Not good "optics" as they say.
MB-
Good for you that you are surprised that the president caved (compromised) on taxes...I posted that he would do so in October. Being a "blank screen" was useful in the campaign but lacking any real unshakable core principles has proven to be somewhat problematic in the real world of governance.
I also agree that he is the only president we have for the next two years.
As to the incoming republican house...check out all of the democratic bills that passed the democratic majority house in the past two years. No look at how many have made it through the senate...need I say more?
Sorry_should have been "Now look at how many have made it through the senate..."
President Obama and Clinton are both pragmatists; they both worked to get things done and if compromising was needed, that's what happened. When did both sides start thinking that legislation was never to be compromised? That's the thinking out there especially on the right.
As for the comparison to Jimmy Carter asserted by a right wing poster, despite all the demonizing of Carter, he did some good things and he certainly did NOT spend this country into oblivion like "Dubya" Bush and the GOP did. Reagan who followed Carter turned this country from a creditor nation to a debtor nation adding 189% to the debt compared to Carter's 42%. One-Hundred and Eighty-Nine Percent, the real Reagan legacy of trickle down, voodoo economics. Bush 43 was Reagan on steroids and a terrible president regarding wars and the economy; he started two wars, finished neither and paid for nothing he did--he charged it. Carter was an average president who achieved some good things, as uninspiring as Carter was, he was 100% better than Bush 43. 43 should have listened to his dad more because Pres George H.W. Bush was a better president than both Reagan and his own son.
Yet another clarification, dangerfield...
Given the anemic state of economic growth, I'm not surprised that the President is willing to extend the Bush tax cuts, across the board...personally, I believe it's insane to raise taxes PERIOD when it's unclear that the economy is recovering to any significant degree from this disastrous recession.
What DOES surprise me is how much the President is getting in exchange for acquiescing to something I felt he'd be forced to accept anyway...and the fact that Congressional Democrats are too dense to recognize this.
Your "blank screen" comment refers to internecine warfare between Democrats about your choice of a presidential candidate...but, I'm a conservative. You on the left are going to have to sort that out among yourselves. Something tells me that discussion is going to get louder as we approach 2012.
Always interesting to hear your thoughts, though.
I think Obama learned a hard lesson on bipartisanship, while he has tried to push for it what he didn't realize like Clinton first didn't is that sometimes you are going to have to do things that you don't want to or don't believe in, that's a foundation of bipartisanship especially when you want to create it in a place as bipolar as Washington D.C.
Uh ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ no! A majority has existed in both chambers but Obama has never "had" them. His reliance on majority leaders such as Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer has rendered him a lame duck since his first day in office. Hoyer spends his days currying favor with Pelosi (who promoted him as her lap dog) and Reid focused on doing his laundry, i.e., he is wishy-washy and a toothless leader. When it became clear that he lacked strong leadership in both houses, Obama in essence surrendered to that fact. A president doesn't necessarily have to stand tall, but he DOES have to stand up. Welcome to the aftermath of lethargy and cowardice, Mr. President. Maybe it will register that you still enjoy a majority in the White House ~ if you have the will to act on it and the guts to take that action.
Jody, et al. ... Ahem... Regarding Bush's "dangerous" spending:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
You will notice that Obama has quadrupled the national deficit and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down on spending. And please, save your soundbites about how he "was fixing what Bush broke" because the financial crisis was decades in the making and had a lot to do with liberal-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the wars are not nearly as costly as everyone thinks that they are-- the vast majority of the war spending is used up on costs that would exist regardless of whether we were in a war or not: soldiers salaries, training costs, weapons acquisitions, R&D, etc.
mixed bag is right on.
I'm no Obama supporter, but I have to say he pulled a brilliant one on both the Dems and Repubs. Got what he wanted, in reality another stimulus, (even Clinton called it that) and did so by giving up really very little to the Republicans. On top of that he can claim the high road by saying he was against the tax cuts for the rich, but would let the American people be held hostage to them. Brilliant.
Sneaky, nefarious, dangerous and destructive to the economy in the long run, but brilliant. Indeed the Congressional Democrats are stupid if they don't support it.
I don't like Obama's policies in any way; socially, fiscally, or morally. But you gotta give him credit for being the penultimate politician. Maybe his community activism within the shadow of the Chicago political machine has come to his aid.
WMG,
How about you save your soundbites blaming Obama for our large deficits. He had no choice and saved a lot of jobs, encouraged investment, and reversed negative trends in GDP which will provide more revenue which decreases the budget. If only our budget was not already huge, there would not be such hype about it. Oh, but thats right, we had a surplus at the beginning of this decade. If you honestly think that Obama is to blame for our economic woes you need to learn a little something about momentum. And yes, the wars were costly, even accounting for fixed military budgeting.
You are right about the build-up, but the collapse was only intensified by the terrible Bush economy anyway. No one had the sense to be able to create proper regulations and enforce them as they should, but it does not seem like we learned our lesson, and it will inevitably happen again.
Unfortunately you are right, it will happen again- regardless of what crackpot is at the helm.
"Republicrat, Democran: One Party System." --Sage Francis
Dangerfield...
You're correct....it was Hillary who wore the "liberal" pantsuit in the family and her husband let her have her input into his administration until he got trashed in the '94 elections....then he gave her the boot and headed out on the prowl.
dangerfield, I didn't know Guantanamo bay was shuttered, we were out of Iraq, the borders issues are behind us, and he went over the budget line by line and vetoed out all the pork and earmarks, sit down and talk to the rogue nation like Iran and North Korea and get them to Love us again, to the contrary No. Korea sent rockets into So. Korea, and Iran has a full blown nuke program, just to mention a few, thanks for informing us what a good job hes done with his promises.. want more let me know have 52 more I can list, don't want to bore you.....but he did turn the Military Gay so I guess hes doing a good job..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Constitution of the Con-Federacy that allowed for the president to veto earmarks not our current one. I believe it is the Senate that has over site on Congressional spending.
The conservatives keep telling us we all have to sacrifice to reduce the deficits. The Wall St billionaires millionares and the millionaire pundits want bigger bonuses and tax breaks. What are they willing to sacrifice?
" What are they willing to sacrifice?"
YOUR grandchildren's future.....(hell, THEIRS will be taken care of plenty well.)
Patrick, that's an easy one. They're willing to sacrifice your unemployment insurance, your childrens education, your local beach, clean air and water, polar bears, food safety, police and fire services in your neighborhood, and the financial well being of this country.
Absolutely nothing! They want it all and you are supposed to be thankful.
Do you seriously not understand - that millionaires and billionaires are not touched by these taxes?
I know, I know ... it's not fair.
Most adults / most Americans realize - life ain't fair.
You want fair? Every state has one. Enjoy the cotton candy and turkey legs.
BTW- The game booths? They're kinda rigged too.
One more thing - The class-warfare rant doesn't work - Americans don't buy it..... like I said they're adults.
Patrick,
Look at it from the bright side, there is one thing rich people and Republicans can't manipulate and get out of: they remain mortal. They are going to die just like the rest of us, and there is nothing they can do about it. So at least we have one thing where we remain equal. That keeps the rich from getting too arrogant.
On Jan 1, the rich will pay a rate of 35%, while the middle class pay 28% (or less). The "poor" will get a tax credit (essentially a tax refund even though they didn't pay any taxes).
That sounds like the rich are paying a pretty high premium to me. But to listen to you lefties, it's like the rich aren't paying taxes at all.
JT Westcoast (and all the other taxes-are-evil whiners-)
After WWII, Eisenhower (a Republican) ramped up the era of infrastructure investment. The entire Interstate Highway System, as well as airports and myriad investment in technology and science was made, which made the post WWII era the golden age for American growth. At NO TIME during that era was the top income tax rate lower than 70%! During that period, business reaped many windfalls in a better physical environment for production and distribution, and yet, many industries failed to invest in their own facilities (steel and autos were the most glaring examples). We see where that got them in a globally competitive world.
Now, our infrastructure is largely past its life expectancy and in decline. Investment is desperately needed to modernize the economy, but funding does not exist. The money that could have paid for investment in infrastructure, human capital, r+d, etc. long ago got diverted to personal gain instead of the tools society needed to remain competitive.
Wonder when this tide against investment turned? 1981 when the federal revenue system started a long term crash, while defense, Social Security and Medicare multiplied, interest began its relentless march to the No 1 federal expenditure, and we decided, as a nation, that we no longer needed to pay for the services our government delivers.
Now, we are an empire drunk on debt and very near the magic tipping point of 90%. That is, the point where empires fall- when interest on debt reaches about 90% of GDP. We will pass that point in 2011. That is the point at which we can no longer hope to grow out of our debt, and growth itself is drugged into lethargy. Also, as a matter of history, that is when imperial overstretch becomes clear. Soon, interest on the national debt will be the biggest item in the federal budget.
There is no way to deal with this problem through cuts in spending alone. Like it or not, taxes will rise, and dramatically. it's called austerity. American Exceptionalism is over. We will be force-fed the same medicine as Ireland, Greece and Portugal before long.
I, for one, will laugh like Hell when (as is very likely) a Republican president gets to stand in front of the cameras and tell America "Folks, we're pretty much broke."
The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Welcome to the Chinese Century.
Nitro, there was an element present during the post-WWII era that is largely absent today. Virtually all of American enterprise was owned and operated by Americans. It was to their advantage to reinvest in the future of our country, reward loyal employees, and focus on longterm growth. Today, the vast majority of those enterprises (if the still exist) are owned and operated by international consortiums who have no national allegiance and whose sole interests are centered on every increasing profit margins an the current quarterly report. Longterm investment is relegated to projections and ruthless measures are followed to attain those projections. Additionally, much of the "silent partner" money invested in the US comes from foreign sources. Hell, our own government is up to its hips in debt to foreign sources. During the Eisenhower era, we enjoyed a sense of national community and collective national pride. Today, even the individual has gravitated to the international mindset which is selfish, unsharing proprietorship where it is everyone for themselves and to hell with all others. We may survive this concept, but I doubt it.
Why compare Obama and Clinton?
Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter now THAT'S a closer match.
Every day Carter must thank his lucky stars he no longer goes down as the worst President in history
Worst President now is reserved for Obama.
Only Obama could have made MOST Americans pine for the "good old days" of George W. Bush
President GW Bush clearly saved Carter's bacon in that dept. already, but Jimmy is probably enjoying the historical reevaluations whoever winds up beneath him on the "honor roll"...
Demonstrably, there are few members of even the Bush family who are pining for the last president's return to anything other than the comfy chair...
I don't know of ANYONE pining away for a return of George Bush.
Apparently you need to get out more often:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/10/28/shock-poll-americans-think-bush-doing-a-better-job-than-obama-and-more/
...and obviously, you should check the definition of PINING...
1: to lose vigor, health, or flesh (as through grief) : languish
2
: to yearn intensely and persistently especially for something unattainable <they still pined for their lost wealth>
I and many of my friends, liberal and conservative are pining for parts of our lost wealth, thanks to W and his brilliant successor...
That is actually a really good point. I'm a registered Democrat but I no longer recongnize myself with them...nor am I a Republican. This guy Obama, seems like a manchurian. He is quite possibly the most robotic speaking, unemotional president I have ever witnessed.
I'm pining for the day when people realize the Democrats and Republicans share the same agenda.....Obfustication of the people.
The red pill saves another one. Welcome to the real world.
bob-1805084
One more thing - The class-warfare rant doesn't work - Americans don't buy it..... like I said they're adults.
Looks like they won bob over. Or is it a case of class envy on bobs' part? First step in correcting a problem is identifying the problem but ole bob seems to think there is no class warfare in this country. And no bob, I don't hate rich people, I just want a fair and level playing field.
The point I made was that liberal class-warfare doesn't work, which it doesn't - check polls, election results over the years, whatever.
What was your point ........ or do you simply have idea envy?
If you don't think class warfare exists, you simply haven't been to the south recently. One of the hottest topics among Billy Bob and Bubba is "that 'boy' in the White House." They are not referring to his age or level of maturity. That contempt extends to any one or any group which Obama advocates for. Oh, its not the topic at the Rotary Club or Garden Society ~ but hang around the barber shop, feed store, tractor dealer, beauth parlor, or cattle auction barn. Don't talk ~ just listen. Then come back with your assertions that "class warfare" isn't alive and well. Go to church on Sunday and witness the most segregated hour in American life ...... all in the name of Jeee-sus and that loving Christian spirit. I'm not advocating for or against the existence of societal class distinction. But don't try to sell me on the fact that it doesn't exist. There is too much evidence to the contrary. I also find that those who vigorously deny its existence are among its greater practitioners.
Frank...
What's "fair" ???? How much should a citizen of this country have to pay out of his or her income to be considered to be "fair".
In 2006 the average household in my state had an income of about $63,000 and paid 38.3% in combined local/state/federal taxes. Those who earned more...paid more. That 38.3% figure is likely now somewhere around 40%. And those who earn more, surely will pay more.
What's the "fair" number for those who earn more to avoid having to repeatedly be accused of being selfish and not caring about others ???
Fair and level playing field wont help you. As long as you're playing the wrong game, you can never win.
 I cant'believe you people hand around your computers and post all your important thoughts, no one cares other than the other morons who do the same. And you will change nothing.
One voice can change plenty.And many have died before us so we can sit at our computers and give our opinions free from opression. If we are silent then all have died in vane,and judging by the constant flow of content here they did not. How great is it that you can sit in your domain and speak your mind to the world!
Most in here are more informed than the average person,of course opinions are another matter.lol
Clinton was a good president,he rode the dot.com, boon,and dipped into the war chest to balance the budget.but overall he trimmed quite a bit of fat like the 50 dollar screw drivers,300 dollar toilet seats for the pentagon,grass root improvements etc.Obama had a good message but bad delivery,and a lot more damage control to deal w/ than Clinton. Obama tried to do to much to quick,and should have not tried to deal w/ so many issues at once,creating a czar for everything.just making government bigger,
Obama has grown the economy,it is just slow like those rotating restaraunts. your moving but you cant really tell youre moving. He has also ramped up the war on terror quietly until wiki leaks that is.His biggest problem is cliche,promising the world,but giving the moon.However it goes.lol
I'm embarrassed for my gun-toting, Bible-thumping, cousin-kissing, Tea Party-loving, ignorant, intolerant caucasian race: 17 points negative toward the President. I don't care how much we deny it or try to rename it, we are still a nation of racists, overt or covert, card-carrying or pillow talking.
Ditto ripcity
But don't you know it's all Obama's fault! And all those varied forms of racists will scream that they aren't and that it's such a liberal cop-out to play the "race card". Too bad it's actually REAL; but, we must not say the Emperor has no clothes amongst actual racists, not in THIS country.
Oh, come on people. Obama had to make a compromise to avoid raising taxes for everyone, because his fellow Democrats didn't propose another acceptable option. It's a pragmatic decision that is the best way to go at the moment. If the economy is on the upswing two years from now, Obama will be fine. It's always about the economy.
I guess what you are saying is that the only acceptable option includes tax cuts for the wealthy. Truth is conservatives took the unemployed, middle class, and the economy as a whole hostage to secure favors for the wealthy. This is not how the President should deal with economic these terrorists. By the way, where is the tea party now? The CBO estimates large gains in employment with or without the wealthy cuts, but a much smaller return on investment and larger deficits by including the wealthy. Americans overwhelming poll against rich cuts.
Its called a rider. That's normal practice for congress.
What frustrates me about Obama this time is his sudden about face. For years he preached about how those making over $250,000 would see their taxes go up at the end of 2010. Now all of a sudden, less than 1 week from his last sermon, he suddenly decides to let all the Bush Tax cuts continue for all the rich people. What does that say about his character and how likely he will do what he says he will do in the future? ... It's all about trust.
I'm not sure it extends all the way to future trust, Bankers ~ but it does prove one thing conclusively. Obama is a politician who has no clue on playing politics. Frankly, he has no help in congress from his own party in majority. He could have stood fast on the upper income tax bracket ~ fulfilling a campaign promise that helped get him elected. If Republicans had blockaded this effort, they could answer to the 98% that also got their taxes hiked, the 2.5-million (soon to be 4-million) who failed to attain an extension of unemployment benefits, and the loss of value by the estate tax. It would have been a hell of a lot easier to sell the consequences to the American people than it would to have sold promises through a campaign pledge ~ ~ and he was successful in that. This is hardball and Obama nor his congressional leaders in both chambers apparently know how to play it.
President Obama will be making lots more deals with the DEVIL trying to save the people in America and I hope the people appreciate it. President Obama really believes he can make all of this go away, well with GOD help he can and only GOD.
I still believe in President Obama, all what is done to harm the Americans is not his fault and YES! he's more disappointed that anyone that he had to make this deal to keep people alive.
I've was unemployed when Bush was in office, I got a job when President Obama was elected into office and now I'm unemployed again. Maybe I should make a career of just being a Temp, I too young to retire and the best is yet to come.
This should teach the Democrats to vote more and often when it's time to make a serious change. I'm afraid Bush program will be around and that is to keep the poor paying taxes while the wealthy stay wealthy.
I thought Obama WAS God! Oh, wait...He only THINKS He is.
Idoit
All he's doing is dragging out the recession. As long as the people who can make the decision think that holding out will get them more "incentives", they have no reason to take risks to make money. Time to kick the teenagers out of the house.
and I love the irony of Veteran's response. Classic vine. ;)
Clinton in 2012
Love the guy, but he's coming down w/ the same disease that afflicts most Dems: spinelessness when it comes to getting into a balz out fight w/ the opposition, plus naivete in assuming good will/ faith on the part of the other guy, and so figuring that if you just reason w/ them they'll come around.
How come our politicians on the left just can't bring themselves to fight for what's right, while the other side's guys are always so fired up to brawl for what's wrong? (and before somebody jumps in to link tenacity to righteousness, Civil War Confederates and the SS in WW2 were usually more fired up even though their cause was evil)
Positions of the left generally have more public support than those of the most of the time significantly more so, right, but too often we can't get our agenda implemented b/c our dogs won't fight and instead turn cur, time, after time, after time, after...
WTF?!! It's like our "leaders" on the left think you can't be the good guy and the tough guy at the same time - that if you're in the right it'll all pan out at the end, and your opponent will see things your way eventually if you debate calmly with him. Even when the opponent is often driven by irrational nut jobs who just flat out hate your guts, think you're a traitor, and for all we know probably have survivalist fantasies of "cleansing" society with a hefty dose of public executions and similar physical liquidations of the political opposition and all those upstarts "destroying America". Open your eyes - the other side doesn't want to deal with you, but rather wants to eradicate you if given the chance. No matter how many times we get clobbered on the head b/c of that false assumption, we (or the wimps we elect) are eager to repeat the mistake over and over again :D
Come on and get w/ the program - literally turn on the TV and see what's the popular programming: for decades now our national sport has been professional football, we're passionate about NASCAR, MME is growing like wild mushrooms, and our kids spend hours playing shoot-em up video games (my generation didn't have good/ realistic looking games to play at home, so we spent hours tearing the guts out of virtual people in Mortal Kombat and otherwise blowing up a lot virtual stuff in the in the arcade instead). We're a nation that likes conflict and brawling - if not to live and experience that in our personal lives, then at least to watch others do it and come out the other side of it as winners.
This is our America - this is what we grew up watching and enjoying and doing. And even though most of us can (hopefully) separate the video game fantasy from the real world, we get a kick out of watching conflict. And for better or worse, politics now is similar to spectator sports - for all we biatch and moan about political gridlock, we still cheer when our "champions" put on a good show/ fight on our behalf, and we want them to knock down and stomp the other side. But on the left, we somehow can't seem to grow a large enough crop of those w/ a love for the fight simply as a fight - people w/ that instinct to sense when the opponent is vulnerable, then pounce, crowd him in, pummel and keep on pummeling him, until you impose your will and win. Then repeat the process over the next conflict.
Obviously can't do it over every little line in every bill, but at least pick a couple issues every year and pick a fight over them - draw some line on the ground, then put up your political dukes and go at it. It won't make the right hate us more than it already does, and it'll make us, the base, feel all warm and fuzzy and so choked up about our fearless champions :D
Oh, for another brawler like Harry Truman - or even an LBJ.
Answer: Nancy Pelosi.
Reason: health care reform bill passed despite being opposed by the majority of US Taxpayers.
Answer: Hillary Clinton.
Reason: Vicious intelligence gathering of UN Diplomats including wire taps, DNA gathering and shadowing.
Point: being a "fighter" can very quickly make you a "bully" and your constituency will not necessarily appreciate you for it.
Stale political talking point: "health care reform bill passed despite being opposed by the majority of US Taxpayers."
Reason: This point was put to rest when most Americans realized that the polls overwhelmingly showed that whereas less than a majority supported the exact reforms, a clear majority did support this or a bill that went further.
My point is that there are "pit bulls" on both sides of the isle. To ignore them is an invitation to get bit.
And here's a link that indicates the public opinion on healthcare reform- the chart on the left hand side shows the steady dwindling of support with the last poll on march 19-20 showing 54% against and only 41% for. I'm afraid I don't see your "clear majority" that supported "this" bill.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Now, if you want to dig up old polls like this one from July 2009:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx
and claim that this is evidence of support for healthcare reform, I am disinclined to concur that the healthcare reform bill that passed was supported by the majority of Americans. This just shows that Americans wanted change to our current health care system, not necessarily an acceptance of the change that Washington decided we wanted. The fact remains that the final bill is a crooked, clumsy, deficit-producing engine of debt that was engineered by some of the furthest left-leaning politicians in office.
The whole point of the senate's super majority rule is to prevent slight majorities from passing devisive bills. Its supposed to force more concensus building, not backroom 2 steppin'.
How about the many many exit polls from NOV 2010 that showed that it was a pretty even split between those who didn't like the HCR bill and those who did and/or wanted it to go further. I believe you will see the numbers continue to go up as far as favorability as the many benefits are starting to be realized by the general public. The unfavorability comes down to what it always comes down to....people don't want to pay for anything. I guess all services should just come for free.
People don't want to be made to buy insurance but they sure as hell don't have any trouble using the ER when they have even small health care needs b/c they don't have insurance and guess what? that cost gets passed onto the public in various ways through higher premiums to those who do buy insurance, to more money needing to be subsidized to hospitals that can't keep floating the unpaid bills of all those ER visits.
By and large, the various actual reform points are viewed favorably when they are asked about individually, except for that mandate to buy insurance. So, fine, if people don't want to be forced to buy insurance to keep the total costs for all down, then change the rules for ERs. Make it so that anyone without insurance must prove an ability to pay in full before any treatment and disallow any truly non-emergent visits, especially if there is no insurance. Keep insurance rates affordable for those who are in lower incomes so they aren't penalized with a double whammy of not being able to obtain care and for those who just want to 'play the odds' on their good health and go without insurance, let them see what happens. BUT, you can't keep allowing for massive numbers of uninsured people AND forcing hospitals and ERs to take care of them no matter what. It drives up health care costs.
In the "picture paints a thousand words" category, it is funny to see the child-Obama bring in the Triangulating Bill Clinton, especially when the child can't even stick around to see how Clinton is trying to defend Obama. I guess getting to the Christmas Party was more important than speaking to the American People about the most important issue of our day.
When Clinton and Obama enter a room, they are a conference of people smarter than any Republicans we have had in national politics in several decades. Let's face it, the Republican party is made up of some very shallow people - or at least people posing as shallow for political purposes - like Poppy Bush eating those pork rhinds, wearing those boots, and attacking Dukakis for supporting the deletion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and his membership in the ACLU. Or Sarah Palin challenging herself to sound more and more like the most ordinary person in the stands at a high school football game. She succeeds in that endeavor most of the time.
And if you gave a test to Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan thirty years ago, on almost any subject, Jimmy would have kicked the gipper's ass. Carter is a studious man, who thinks that all people should study occasionally. Reagan is the guy on the football team that got the girl. He was a football broadcaster for God's sake. That's how he got his big break - the screen test. And while he could give a good speech, he certainly never wrote a word of them.
The problem with this blog is that the people that love Reagan and W. are just like them. They don't study. But they can parrot what somebody on Fox news said last week.
Comparing the former President Clinton to the President now under similar political out comes, leaves out the difference of the economy that we are coming out of under the Obama leadership, this was the biggest recession since the great depression, not only this countries economy was collapsing but many countries in the world were to, it leaves out the difference of the debt we have compared to then, also the BP oil spill that came at a crucial time as we began to recover; the drug and gang problems are much worse now, immigration is different to, the problems are more complex now than then, when these are factored in it seams to me that it puts Obama a little bit ahead, considering that he has managed to accomplish, many things through all of this to stabilise as much as we are starting to see, and passing historic health care that in my opinion will even watered down will help the country be more able to pay down the debt over time, considering that he has only been in office for two years, it seams like that would put him a little ahead, he has two years to build on his rating, and to me it does seam like he will be a two term President, considering that he is a very motivated individual, who is willing to tackle the hard problems for the good of the nation when so many would [ kick the can down the road for political safety]
W O W!......what is beyond Deomocrat??....oh yeah i remember it from F A Hayek's book it is the road to serfdom
1:51 am posts reek of alcohol
Super Logi : Apparently you are comparing Obama to Regan and Carter, who lived in another generation than Obama, and who's political conditions was not the same as Clinton's in 1994, and Obamas in 2010, Clinton won a second term and the conditions was similar to now, and the economy is starting to move in the right way, did you see how much the trade deficit shrank and interest rates went up a little everything is looking like a robust market for real growth in 2011, I think you will be surprised when that leads to even more growth in 2012, does it look like Obama will be our next President? all indicators are pointing that way!!!
beyond...
good to see that stereotyping is still alive and well in the good ole USA
Wow!...ol' Bubba is looking wrung out!...guess being a "gofer" for the secretary of state can put some miles on ya...
Maybe he can go with Obama on his next weekly vacation?
It is pretty obvious Obama needs help at all levels! his team?! is breaking down from inexperience, dogma, and demagoguery! Clinton was a pragmatist, and smart! He actually WAS a Rhodes Scholar, where Obama is a quota baby of the Ivy league system!
Obama is under water, another fact is the demonrats of the left are much tougher than the RINO's in congress! THEY, the lefty demonrats stand up to Obama's threats, where RINO's run for cover and hide! and quake in their shoes from fear! too bad OUR side does not have the backbone of the lefties in this government! we could use some of it: message to all RINO's, Scott Brown, Collins, Voinivich, all of them, even mcloser! Bush cratered too!
edwardo1001200; sounds to me like your leaning to the left a little! by 2012 there will be many Rino`s, and Re pubs, who will change their names, and become staunch Democrats who stood up for the country from the start, if the next two years fruits of the President and the Democrats labors are realised, like a ballot box stuffed with more votes than people there to vote!!!
"Quota baby of the Ivy League system" The guy was editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review. That position can get you almost any Big Law job in DC/NY or a clerkship with a Supreme Court Justice. No way Harvard only took him to make a quota.
Yeah, How did you get that/ From those sealed school records? How many millions now? how many law firms to hide them?
count me as skeptical on BO=BC....the real question is why so many republicans think they got a victory here....this is another in a L O N G line of bills stuffed with pork....putting us further in debt and closer to indebted servitude.....what now fellow serfs?
Road to Serfdom; You Tu sound like you might be leaning to the left a little; "well" come on over now that you are beginning to think outside the herd !!!
Revolution.
NO heard mentality here, the lemmings were the demonrats who followed the pied piper(media) over the cliff for Obama! if the media had not of hid the fact of John the snake Edwards infidelity from the public, Hillary would have been nominated and lost!!!!!
President Obushma is setting himself up to be one of the worst Presidents of all time..He needs to grow a pair and show some spine. He may want to make sure his veto pen is ready because I think he is going to need it quite a lot over the next two years but again that all depends as to whether he takes his lips off of the Republicans behinds or not..
yeah for gridlock.
If people really think we are going to reduce the massive debt which is continuing to grow without tax increases then you are dreaming. As the old saying goes "you can pay me now or your kids and grandkids can pay me later".
And the biggest waste of all have been those two wars that seem to never end nor get us anywhere really. One of the things that conservatives conveniently forget is that Bush's deficit was actually bigger than it appeared b/c he didn't include the war costs in his budget. They got their own little category. Obama included them in the name of transparency and truthfulness and gee, those war costs do tend to add up.
v
every one of you need to study history a little more, because every time this country is or was in a recession, republicans were in rule including are presidents, so chew on that for a while then open your mouths again.
Just because every recession happened with a Republican in office does not mean that it is necessarily his fault. It just so happens to be that Republicans were just the ones nominated and elected in those terms that we hit the recession.
If you had studied any Economics at all you would now that the economy is bound to recess and boom over and over again, and that there is no stopping it... You cannot grow without falling, and btw the first term of Bush was the biggest boom this country had seen in a long time, and everyone was making money. However, the bigger the climb the bigger the fall, which is what happened to the economy at the end of Bush's 2nd term.
The only recovery that has happened to the economy since Obama stepped into office was the natural recovery that the economy would have seen anyway, it had nothing to do with the stimulus packages that Obama had enacted. If it did have anything to do with Obama the economy would have recovered quicker and with more gusto.
Also to the fact that one of the few companies not bailed out by Obama, Ford Motor Company, is one of the companies doing better than any other car manufacturer that was bailed out. Aka GM who recently declared backruptcy.
Ups and downs are all part of the economy. The bigger the gain the harder the fall, and there is no one savior that is there to save everything. Honestly I think we should focus more on ourselves and recovering than we are on natural disasters elsewhere in the world. The US giving money to other countries to help them out is a really awesome thing to do, don't get me wrong, but the fact of the matter is, we don't have the money to give, and the faster we can recover our economy the faster the world can recover its economy, and the happier we can all be again.
Ahem...
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
You will notice that Obama has quadrupled the national deficit and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down on spending. And please, save your soundbites about how he "was fixing what Bush broke" because the financial crisis was decades in the making and had a lot to do with liberal-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the wars are not nearly as costly as everyone thinks that they are-- the vast majority of the war spending is used up on costs that would exist regardless of whether we were in a war or not: soldiers salaries, training costs, weapons acquisitions, R&D, etc. So, while historically deficits have been associated with republican leadership, it seems that this is yet another historical precedent that Obama would like to overturn.
I agree with Teddy; Bush was not responsible for the recession, and Obama is not responsible for fixing it, but all leading economists agree that if the TARP and stimulus plans weren't put in place, our economy would have been a hell of a lot worse, maybe even have crumbled. Government cannot and should not make or break an economy, but it should nudge it a little when needed, and it was needed! We were riding a bubble for way too long, it was bound to burst, and in our denial we would have gotten slammed.
and everytime we switched to dems, it turned into a long recession/depression. If the recession happened early in the term, the recession was deeper but faster. See Coolidge, 1920.
The economy only does better for the very wealthy under Republicans. The economy does better for EVERYONE under Democrats. The numbers don't lie. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
Obama looked weak as Clinton takes over the podium. Hey, Obama is always telling us that he was elected and he's the president -- then why is he letting Clinton walk all over him. Weak and scary -- Obama does not know what to do because he was never presidental material.
OBAMA