Democratic National Convention 2012

[Hoss]

Clinton's speech:

http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Former-President-Bill-Clinton-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3779974/

Some of the floor reporters noted that he would stray from the prompter.  I remember hearing that he would do this a lot.  Made the prompter operators nuts.

[Conan71]

If folks were so certain of an impending recovery, why did HW lose to "It's the economy, stupid?"

He didn't.  Ross Perot and his Napoleon complex cost GWH the '92 election...at least in the popular vote.  This is likely the very reason Trump decided to check his ego at the door this year.

Clinton was charming, toed the company line, and I love him as always.  He was also careful to point to successes of the Reagan and Bush Admins which I thought was a classy move.  I don't recall McCain referring to any positive accomplishments of the Clinton, Carter, Johnson, or Kennedy admins.

He's a great speaker.  He did have to spread some manure, but I didn't expect him to touch on negatives.  He's there to sell another term for Obama whether or not it made him throw up in his mouth a little.  The hug between the two at the end did appear to be between two people who really do respect and have a genuine admiration for each other.  It may have been carefully orchestrated but I think Clinton and Obama DO have a deep respect for each other.  At times I think Clinton respects Obama more for the president he could be while I think Obama ignores the successful leadership patterns of his successors.

[Conan71]

Some of the floor reporters noted that he would stray from the prompter.  I remember hearing that he would do this a lot.  Made the prompter operators nuts.

Clinton speaks about what he feels.

Obama speaks about what he thinks.

[nathanm]

He didn't.  Ross Perot and his Napoleon complex cost GWH the '92 election...at least in the popular vote.  

I remember watching Perot's chartfest prime time infomercials. He seemed rather concerned about the economy in addition to the debt.

[Hoss]

Clinton speaks about what he feels.

Obama speaks about what he thinks.

At least they both speak eloquently.  It was usually pretty painful to watch Bush speak.

[carltonplace]

I though Warren was great, she surprised me. Clinton was Clinton: charismatic and funny. I agree that I liked the nod to the other former presidents and the cooperation theme.

The never ending line of "witnesses" wore thin quickly.

[Gaspar]

I thought Clinton was great also, but it seemed he was damning with faint praise.  He tended, as usual, to turn the conversation towards himself, and featured his own successes more than president Obama's accomplishments.  Clinton speeches are like onions, there are layers of intension and strategic positioning throughout.  I think his anemic endorsement was a rather obvious attempt to set the stage for Hillary in 16.  His appearance was more like "hey I'm back, and I'm a rockstar." 

I like Jay Leno's comment to the affect that they are continuously trying to adjust the lights in the arena, but they can't seem to get President Obama out of the shadows.



I don't know how putting a pro-growth proven leader ahead of President Obama is going to help.  I think it would have been more helpful to open with Carter and close with Clinton after Obama's acceptance.  That would force Clinton to comment on the plans and promises that President Obama lays out.

[Gaspar]

Talk about the cunning of the Clintons.  We know that bill knew about this when he made the statement about claims that President Obama is gutting the Welfare requirement as "a real doozy."

Apparently on Tuesday morning the Government Accountability Office delivered a ruling to the Whitehouse that this type of change to welfare reform is illegal and it must be passed through congress. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443571904577631970411021452.html

One of the authors of the original 1996 law, Rob Rector, commented:
"The Obama Administration will put in mothballs the formal purpose of welfare reform—to reduce the number of people dependent on government benefits. The Administration will abandon the legislative performance goal that encourages states to reduce welfare caseloads. It will weaken the "work participation" standards that require some 30 percent of able-bodied Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients to engage in work activities for 20 to 30 hours per week.  In the typical state, 1.5 percent of the TANF caseload leaves welfare and obtains work each month. Thus, any state can be fully exempted from the TANF work requirements if it raises the number of exits to 1.8 percent. This is a miniscule change. What will the other 98.2 percent of the caseload be doing? No one knows for sure. But one thing we do know for certain: They will be exempt from the federal "work participation" requirements established in the welfare reform law."

As one of the most successful bills of the Clinton Presidency, Bill's comment last night was simply setting up a pin that had already been knocked down.  Freekin brilliant!  He had no problem endorsing the decision last night because he knew it was squashed.  The dude is a rockstar!

Now President Obama has the difficult task of backpedalling on a decision that turns out to be illegal. Seems to be a recurring theme.

[AquaMan]

You, sir, are the recurring theme. You don't even waste time for others to comment and you certainly don't listen or reply to the inconsistencies of you and your candidates. This is a time you could learn something by pushing aside the rhetoric and listening to speakers at the convention with real life stories and experience. Just like the Republican convention offered. Instead, every picture, every negative blowhard's rant is a chance to spear the leader. Exasperating really. But, like Bill, you are entertaining.

Just think how successful you could be if you dropped your vendetta against Democrats and Obama and turned that intelligent rage towards something more fruitful. Beating up liberals and Democrats in a red state where that group is pretty much like a clan of Jews in a German ghetto indicates you've set your sights too low. Go to a blue state and try your stuff.

[Gaspar]

You, sir, are the recurring theme. You don't even waste time for others to comment and you certainly don't listen or reply to the inconsistencies of you and your candidates. This is a time you could learn something by pushing aside the rhetoric and listening to speakers at the convention with real life stories and experience. Just like the Republican convention offered. Instead, every picture, every negative blowhard's rant is a chance to spear the leader. Exasperating really. But, like Bill, you are entertaining.

Just think how successful you could be if you dropped your vendetta against Democrats and Obama and turned that intelligent rage towards something more fruitful. Beating up liberals and Democrats in a red state where that group is pretty much like a clan of Jews in a German ghetto indicates you've set your sights too low. Go to a blue state and try your stuff.

I've been equally hard on Republicans.  Party makes little difference.  I ridicule stupidity, and those who support it.
Democrats are not stupid people, they've simply been pushed into a corner and taught to fear liberty.

[carltonplace]

"Taught to Fear liberty?"

That sums up your opinion of the left fairly well  I guess. Too bad it's not remotely accurate.

[swake]

Democrats are not stupid people, they've simply been pushed into a corner and taught to fear liberty.

Oh good lord. Tell us again about that stock market at 8000, ok Mr Wisdom? Stupid is going back to Bush era policies and trying again to create jobs by cutting taxes on the rich.

[AquaMan]

"I've been equally hard on Republicans.  Party makes little difference.  I ridicule stupidity, and those who support it.
Democrats are not stupid people, they've simply been pushed into a corner and taught to fear liberty."

Geez. What BS. No wonder you prefer R&R to Obama. You identify with them because you can't even tell the truth to yourself.

You act like you're this disinterested observer who is just here to enlighten us all to the truth. Yet you're truths are seldom defensible, if your lengthy defensive posts are any measure. If, as you and I both believe, appearance is 80% or more of reality, you are neither objective nor enlightening. You're not even a recovering Republican. You're a victim of ODS!

There's a liquor for that.

[erfalf]

"I've been equally hard on Republicans.  Party makes little difference.  I ridicule stupidity, and those who support it.
Democrats are not stupid people, they've simply been pushed into a corner and taught to fear liberty."

Geez. What BS. No wonder you prefer R&R to Obama. You identify with them because you can't even tell the truth to yourself.

You act like you're this disinterested observer who is just here to enlighten us all to the truth. Yet you're truths are seldom defensible, if your lengthy defensive posts are any measure. If, as you and I both believe, appearance is 80% or more of reality, you are neither objective nor enlightening. You're not even a recovering Republican. You're a victim of ODS!

There's a liquor for that.

What is even harder to believe is that many on here claim to see a real difference in the Bush era policies and the Obama era policies.

[Gaspar]

What is even harder to believe is that many on here claim to see a real difference in the Bush era policies and the Obama era policies.

LOL!  Exfreekinzactly!