What's next for Hillary?

[Hometown]

Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.

It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years.  Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives.  Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about:  welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.

This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.

Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust.  Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.

Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants:  The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence.  This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.

When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding.  He did what Republicans could only talk about.  He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.

Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

If Hillary manages to steal the nomination, it will mark the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of the Democratic Party.  Here is why I say this: the Obama campaign has energized the youth of this country, and the Democratic Party has many new supporters because of Barack.  These young voters have spoken and they overwhelmingly support Obama.  If the Dems thwart the will of the majority of the voters by installing Clinton as the nominee, these youth will feel betrayed by the party and will never, ever support it again.  Some of them will switch to the GOP, some to third parties, but I predict the majority will just give up on politics.  A Hillary nomination would satisfy the old guard types, but the youth is the future, and in 20 years many of the old guard will be gone and these same youth will be entering middle age.  A Hillary nomination would be a huge slap in the face of the youth of America, and the end of the party.

Bugo, of course the Democrats want the youth vote but we have counted on it for the past two presidential elections and it didn't materialize.  Old voters may not be as appealing in your eyes but they are dependable and they vote every election and they have something that is invaluable -- experience.  The loss of the old regulars (who also have money) would be a much greater loss for the party.

Young folks, welcome aboard, get in line and start paying your dues and get ready for a bumpy ride.

[cannon_fodder]

Heh, was going to use a monkey as my animal but tried to avoid the negative connotation.  I figured an elephant was fairly neutral, clearly I wasn't thinking of the connotation.  

But a donkey would be just as good...

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.

It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years.  Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives.  Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about:  welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.

This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.

Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust.  Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.

Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants:  The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence.  This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.

When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding.  He did what Republicans could only talk about.  He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.

Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.

Thanks for the laughs.  

BTW, your party has moved on now I suggest you do the same.  The love affair with the cult of Clinton is long gone.  Most of the rest of your party has seen them for what they really are and they can't disassociate themselves fast enough.

[FOTD]

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/124118/7190/790/511780

(Daily Kos...so CF, Iplaw etc ignore!)

Hillary's "white Americans" comment causing a quick firestorm (Updated x3)
It's comments like that one that might drive more supers toward Obama pretty quickly. Why?  Because they know the math, but they don't want her to spend three weeks making a case that Obama can't win. It will only weaken him. Here's what Obama backer Chris Dodd said yesterday, per NBC's Ken Strickland. "You're going to be asking a bunch of people [in West Virginia] to vote against somebody who's likely to be your nominee a few weeks later? And turn around and ask the very same people a few weeks later to reverse themselves and now vote for [Obama] on election day?"

"I'd like to give a well-deserved shout-out to Rachel Maddow.  On MSNBC's post-election coverage on Tuesday night, all the male commentators were gushing, some with their eyes welling up, over Hillary's election night speech, calling it "whi****l" and saying she was clearly going to end her campaign with "grace" and "dignity." But Maddow said she heard something completely different in Hillary's speech, and predicted that Clinton would continue her scorched-earth strategy. Maddow was roundly pooh-poohed by all the commentators, including KO, but it turns out, sadly, that she was spot on. It is beyond too late for Hillary to end her campaign with grace and dignity.  "Sad" and "pathetic" is the best she can hope for now."


Bill Clinton is power crazy. That's all it is....

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.

It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years.  Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives.  Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about:  welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.

This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.

Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust.  Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.

Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants:  The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence.  This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.

When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding.  He did what Republicans could only talk about.  He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.

Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.

Honestly HT, I have no agenda to advance other than some semblance of historical accuracy.  I'll agree that along with a Republican Congress which showed much more restraint than they did under Bush, Clinton was a very good fiscal President in spite of conservative pundits constantly calling him a "tax & spend liberal."

The prosperity we experienced in Clinton's second term was in good part due to over-leveraged business hiring $80K/ year MBA's and engineers on borowed money from way overly-speculative IPO's and an over-leveraged real estate market in areas of the country to provide housing for these newly-minted yuppies.

Those were the knds of jobs we wanted to create to replace the ones we farmed out via NAFTA.  Only problem is, pension funds were being leveraged in venture captial and IPO scams left and right.  People were making money so long as fresh money kept coming into the ponzi scheme.  Once the market leveled out, remember what happened to all the dot bombs and the real estate market out in the valley?

We had some of the largest corporate fraud investigations and corporate failures due to  fraud since the Great Depression.  Not saying it was all Clinton inititatives, but if people wish to claim that Clinton created a greater economy than Reagan or either Bush, a little historical exam is in order.

I'm in the crowd that believes a President doesn't make or break an economy all on his own.  Policy, but more important, a message of confidence in the economy is how Presidents can bolster it.

I have no personal bone to pick with you, but if you are going to constantly harp on what a bust Reagan and the Bushes were, I think it only fair I show that Clinton doesn't get all the credit for his boom years either.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about:  ... balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.

This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.

Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust.  Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.

I really tried to take politics out of the equation, but this is just not accurate:

Federal Deficit in 1992:  $4,064,620,655,521.66
Federal Deficit in 1999:  $5,674,178,209,886.86
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Where was the surplus, the balanced budget, and the debt pay down you speak of?  

And don't forget whatever fiscal credit/fault you want to give Clinton you need to give to the Republican Congress - who hold the purse strings (as seen by Bush spending).  A President can not spend money, (s)he can make suggestions and threats and nothing more.  CONGRESS spends money - which as you pointed out was reserved (though no surplus) with a Republican Congress and has been flying out the door with a Democratic Congress (though Bush has certainly done nothing to help and Clinton did agree to cutting spending).  Just stating the facts.

Per the Federal Funds rate, the rate was raised both to fend off "inflationary pressures" and to cool down irrational exuberance.  When the 1990's start to roar the funds rate was raised to 5-6%.  When he gave the irrational exuberance speech it was pushed to 6.5%.  When the bubble burst the rate free fell until they were forced to raise it (so they had somewhere to go if it faltered again).

So under your conspiracy theory, he "killed" the new economy in 1993 when he started raising rates.  Too bad no one knew it at the time and continued to fuel the economy...  and DAMN him for having 8.2% rates in Bush I just to ruin him.

[edit]Clinton did not urge over spending, an editing typo by deleting a line partially by mistake[/edit]

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about:  ... balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.

This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.

Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust.  Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.

I really tried to take politics out of the equation, but this is just not accurate:

Federal Deficit in 1992:  $4,064,620,655,521.66
Federal Deficit in 1999:  $5,674,178,209,886.86
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Where was the surplus, the balanced budget, and the debt pay down you speak of?  

And don't forget whatever fiscal credit/fault you want to give Clinton you need to give to the Republican Congress - who hold the purse strings (as seen by Bush spending).  A President can not spend money, (s)he can make suggestions and threats and nothing more.  CONGRESS spends money - which as you pointed out was reserved (though no surplus) with a Republican Congress and has been flying out the door with a Democratic Congress (though Bush has certainly done nothing to help and Clinton did to urge over spending).  Just stating the facts.

Per the Federal Funds rate, the rate was raised both to fend off "inflationary pressures" and to cool down irrational exuberance.  When the 1990's start to roar the funds rate was raised to 5-6%.  When he gave the irrational exuberance speech it was pushed to 6.5%.  When the bubble burst the rate free fell until they were forced to raise it (so they had somewhere to go if it faltered again).

So under your conspiracy theory, he "killed" the new economy in 1993 when he started raising rates.  Too bad no one knew it at the time and continued to fuel the economy...  and DAMN him for having 8.2% rates in Bush I just to ruin him.

I seem to remember that Clinton refused to sign the "Balanced Budget" bill.  Gingrich and the Republican congress threatened, and then shut down the federal government for 2 days before Clinton finally agreed to sign it.

Then two days later he made a speech where he uttered the famous line (with a thumb in the air) "Working with members of Congress, we balanced the federal budget."  and idiots all over the country ate it up!

I was angry!  It was like he was saying "screw the informed, you are outnumbered by idiots and they love me!"

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Bugo, of course the Democrats want the youth vote but we have counted on it for the past two presidential elections and it didn't materialize.  Old voters may not be as appealing in your eyes but they are dependable and they vote every election and they have something that is invaluable -- experience.  The loss of the old regulars (who also have money) would be a much greater loss for the

But in 20 years, many of these voters will be dead.  The 18-40 year olds (or whatever the exact demographic is) who are joining the political process for the first time will have moved past the Democratic Party and onto either the GOP, third parties, or possible a party that replaces the Democratic Party on the national scene (don't laugh, the Whigs aren't laughing).  In 20 years, these voters will be essential to winning the presidency, and all of them will remember how the Democratic party burned them, how they used them, how they said their voice doesn't matter.  This generation does not forget this sort of thing.  If Hillary does slither her way into the nomination, it could well be better for the party for the next 8 years or so, but after that it will be a steep decline for the party.  The reason the Democrats are in as bad of shape as they are in and the reason that Bush is in office is because instead of planning for the future, they've been incredibly short-sighted(Lieberman as VP?  What's up with that?) and failed to plan for the future.  Hopefully the Dem leadership and the superdelegates realize this is a real possibility and they will nominate Barack Obama.  And anyway, I didn't want to have to write in Mickey Mouse, which I will probably do if Slithery is nominated.  Or I will hold my nose and vote for Grandpa McCain.

In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.

[FOTD]

The same thing was said about McGovern, Carter, and Dukakis.....

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by bugo
In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.

That is the most outrageous thing I have read on this forum for months.

Slither her way to the nomination?

Please.

[TheArtist]

The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference.  But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.

Whats going to be interesting to watch is how these millineals mature and become more sophisticated. (like the river vote which was something they wanted in general but was in reality a cumbersome and overly expensive idea). There is also the latino and black populations that we talk about, how will these large groups move things in the future and interact with the millineals? One thing to note though is that many groups that we delineate as being different now, women and men voters, white, black, latino... they all contain millineals and the millineals in these groups are more alike than different. They are more color blind, more accepting of different sexual orientation, men and women are equal, etc. Is going to be interesting to watch this group.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.

She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.

She'd have to win 86% of the vote in the remaining six primaries to overtake Obama's lead in delegates...

But then again, she agreed to the rules months ago when her surrogates controlled the rules committee...

Per usual, a Clinton will twist the truth and literally SAY ANYTHING to get elected...

[FOTD]

Let's call this the creep to veep.....

Anyway, she done him good in the long race.

"But there is a competing view that says that Mrs. Clinton, rather than being a spoiler, has in fact been an unwitting mentor to Mr. Obama, a teaching adversary who made him better. Could competing against Mrs. Clinton have improved Mr. Obama as a candidate in the same way that competing against Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in the 1980s made Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan champions in the 1990s?"

YES!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weekinreview/11leib.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

"By contrast, Mr. Obama is now a better prepared and better defined candidate, and no doubt a stronger one, than he would have been without his rival. He went through 21 debates against a tough opponent, Mrs. Clinton, and improved steadily (with an exception in Philadelphia last month). He has made mistakes, but nothing fatal, and nothing he can't learn from."

The devil smells blood.....repug blood.

[RecycleMichael]

Hillary should win big on Tuesday in West Virginia. Some polls have her ahead by forty points. That would make it the biggest blowout of any of the states.

Why won't poor people in small towns vote for Obama? Why do people without a college education vote for Hillary over him?

Will these same people vote for McCain over him in the fall?