RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Clinton single-handedly dismantled the Romney campaign's central talking points."

Former President Bill Clinton hugged President Obama onstage. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)
Former President Bill Clinton hugged President Obama onstage. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)


Bill Clinton's Barn Burning Speech Leaves Romney-Ryan Bleeding on the Ground

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

06 September 12

 

n what may prove to be one of the great blunders of the 2012 campaign, the Romney camp spent the past weeks elevating Bill Clinton's status as a means of attacking Barack Obama. In an interview with CNN this week, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, "Bill Clinton was a different kind of Democrat than Barack Obama... Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans to cut spending. Bill Clinton did not play the kind of political games that President Obama's playing."

On Wednesday night, those efforts came back to bite them when Bill Clinton articulated the case for Barack Obama's re-election better than the Obama campaign itself has done so far. The "Big Dog" alternated between offering up some down-home populism and explaining, often in fine detail, the policy differences that divide Obama and Mitt Romney - and what, exactly, the latter's extreme ideology would result in for the American people.

Clinton did a far better job of fact-checking the Romney-Ryan campaign's claims than the media's self-appointed fact-checkers, and in doing so, he reminded the crowd that, regardless of any criticisms of Clinton's own policies that one might harbor, there is simply nobody in American politics today who can grab and hold an audience the way Bill Clinton can when he's on. And on Wednesday night, he was on.

In the days leading up to Clinton's speech, some of the leading hacks of our pundit class worked feverishly to create a dramatic storyline around the evening. Ben Smith suggested that Democrats were "wait[ing] nervously" to see if "private strategic differences" between the current and former president "might play out in public." Lanny Davis urged Obama to follow Clinton's "legacy" by embracing the (nonexistent) Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations and being nicer to his Republican opponents (no, really). And Fox News "Democrats" Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen wrote, "Mr. Obama should follow the lead of President Bill Clinton, who emphasized in both his terms in office the need for unity and consensus to achieve fiscal restraint. Inviting Mr. Clinton to speak at the convention Wednesday night is a sure sign that the Obama campaign understands the need to move to the center."

But a polling memo released this week by Lake Research found that progressive economic messages were far better received by real voters than the tepid faux-centrism embraced by most Beltway bloviators, and nobody ever accused Bill Clinton of lacking keen political instincts. So, in a typically in-depth speech clocking in at almost 50 minutes, Clinton - whom Josh Marshall described as looking "like a caged animal let back out for a brief run in the wild" - systematically dismantled (perhaps "dismembered" is a better word) all of the mendacious rhetoric that has been offered up by the Romney campaign.

The Republican argument, said Clinton, is essentially: "we left him a total mess. But he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough so fire him and put us back in." Then Clinton turned to the real problem with the Romney-Ryan plan: "arithmetic."

People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If they stay with a $ 5 trillion tax cut in a debt reduction plan the arithmetic tells us that one of three things will happen: 1) they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up two thousand dollars year while people making over $ 3 million a year get will still get a $250,000 tax cut; or 2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education and other programs that help middle class families and poor children, not to mention cutting investments in roads, bridges, science, technology and medical research; or 3) they'll do what they've been doing for 30-plus years now - cut taxes more than they cut spending, explode the debt, and weaken the economy. Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.

Clinton pointed out that since 1961, the GOP has held the White House for 28 years and the Dems have had it for 24. In that time, according to our 42nd president, 66 million jobs had been created in this country, 42 million of which came on the Democrats' watch. He concluded:

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.

Then Clinton single-handedly dismantled the Romney campaign's central talking points. Of the charge that Obama had watered-down Clinton-era welfare reforms, he said, "the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true." Clinton explained: "when some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent. You hear that? More work." He continued with a sharp elbow, saying, "But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said 'we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself."

Of the other Big Lie employed by the Romney-Ryan campaign, Clinton said, "When Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama's Medicare savings as 'the biggest, coldest power play,' I did not know whether to laugh or cry." He noted that the Ryan plan featured the same "cuts" - they aren't cuts in Medicare benefits - that Obama enacted and Romney called a "raid" on Medicare, and added, "it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."

Clinton provided an accessible explanation of the philosophical divide in this election: "If you want a 'you're on your own, winner take all society' you should support the Republican ticket," he said. But "if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities - a 'we're all in it together' society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

And he put the blame for the 'incivility' that has marked this campaign squarely where it belongs: on the Republican party, with half of its base believing that the president of the United States was born overseas (and a good number who believe he was born here but is nonetheless "un-American"). "Though I often disagree with Republicans," he said, "I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats." He added: "When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better... Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness."

Throughout the lengthy address, the partisan crowd cheered wildly, breaking into several rounds of chants for "four more years!" Then, after Clinton wrapped it up, Barack Obama emerged from back stage and the two men embraced.

After the speech, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said on CNN, "This convention is done. This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama." That's unlikely - there are very few persuadable voters in this cycle, and convention speeches don't have the same impact that they did before the proliferation of online media, when families learned much about the candidates sitting in front of their television sets. But for political junkies who savor the art of oratory, it was a speech that will be remembered for a long time to come.


See Also: Transcript of Bill Clinton’s Speech to the Democratic National Convention

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+253 # polgal333 2012-09-06 06:59
I am so proud of President Clinton's speech. What a turn-around from what was spewed by the the Republicans at the RNC. Let's hope the truthful, common sense spoken by President Clinton makes a difference in how this election turns out. He broke everything down to make it understandable. Let's hope Republican supporters can now understand why they should vote for Obama and not Romney. Clinton showed us how Obama is leading us on the path to prosperity and better times. Romney would lead only the WEALTHY on the path to even MORE prosperity..... ...the rest of us would be on our own. It doesn't trickle down, folks! Romney would have the foxes tend to the chicken coops!
 
 
+234 # colvictoria 2012-09-06 07:02
I am sold! Bill Clinton's speech was exceptional and inspiring and although I dislike Obama and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy disasters in the Middle East I am going to have to vote Democratic. It was refreshing to see on TV the diversity in the crowds at the DNC. I saw people of all races. I saw lots of women and retired folks. I saw teachers and auto workers, firemen, policemen all hardworking Americans. Compared to the RNC where the crowd was not DIVERSE not even close.
This is a hard pill to swallow because I see how both parties are sold to the corporate powers but the D's seem to have just a little more understanding, reason & compassion on many levels versus the R's.
 
 
+83 # glyde 2012-09-06 08:26
I completely agree with you.
 
 
-175 # edge 2012-09-06 09:26
Sure made you want to vote for Clinton and what a disappointment Obama has been!

I sure wish they had a bunch of very young ladies in berets but it might have knocked Billy off of his game :)
 
 
+4 # David Starr 2012-09-06 10:58
Ideally, I'm not goo goo-gaa gaa over Obama, and particularly, Clinton, given,e.g., his fasttrack legislation of NAFTA. But I'm sure the Repubs were all for it; perhaps silent cheerleading while they conducted an inquisition against him. The Repubs especially don't want to miss out on leeching off of subsistence labor, whereever it may be. My point though is that Repubs have certainly got their share of secret nookey, perhaps they're better at hiding it. But I wouldn't count on it being they're as clumsy as the Dems in that department.
 
 
+42 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:45
The repugs weren't "silently cheering him on" about NAFTA. They were very LOUDLY DEMANDING he sign the legislation that they wrote and passed through repug Congress. It was their idea. He signed it.
 
 
+7 # David Starr 2012-09-07 10:01
Thanks for the clarification Billy Bob. Yeah, I obviously believe it. It is more to the Repubs general, parasitical nature and behavior.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:47
Given that you're more interested in Lewinsky than policy, who will you be voting for in November?

I'm asking because all this "disappointment " about his right-wing Presidency seems to come from right-wingers pretending to be "disappointed".
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 16:42
I shouldn't have said "all this disappointment. ..". I'm disappointed too. What I meant was all this feigned disappointment by people who refuse to vote for him and don't think anyone else should either...
 
 
+3 # David Starr 2012-09-07 10:01
Nice last line !
 
 
+55 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-06 11:25
Thank God. I believe we cannot afford one month of Romney Ryan no less 4 years.

I believe what we must do right now is get voters id, get them out to vote and start planning for 2016

We must move forward and upward, and it is going to take us all, and it is going to take our time to do it right. My grandparents came here to build their life, my parents wanted to make our lives better, now it is up to us to leave the future for ours.

Romney Ryan is for here and now....Money will not buy the future, hard work will.
Welcome aboard, thank you
 
 
+80 # stonecutter 2012-09-06 07:05
It was a good speech, but the author of this piece is right; only political junkies, .00001% of the electorate, will be positively affected by it. 99.9999% either didn't watch it, didn't understand it, don't care enough to think about it, or think Clinton is the Devil. If Christopher Hitchens was still here, he'd be ripping Bubba a new one this morning; not everyone in the pundit class thinks Clinton is the second coming. Anyway, we've still got the debates, and I'm convinced it'll come down to those head-to-head encounters, where Obama's "4 C's": His Charm, Character, Charisma and Caring will trump Romney's "3 W's": His Wealth, Witlessness and Whiteness.
 
 
+85 # tclose 2012-09-06 08:58
I don't agree that 99.999..% didn't watch: Clinton is a big draw and I'll bet that many moderate Repubs and independents were watching just to see him "do his thing". This is an important segment of the electorate which will make or break this campaign, and I think many will be persuaded not only by Clinton's passion and great delivery, but also by the rationality of his argument - and his arithmetic.

What a speech!
 
 
+42 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-06 11:29
They had to watch, those that did not were kicking themselves and watching the rerun.
They can bs all they want now but Clinton took the time, didn't lose the audience giving details.
Most people didn't read the Healthcare or any forums on it. Clinton put it out there so that the sheeple could understand...no Media Black out on that last night. Bravo
 
 
+21 # X Dane 2012-09-06 22:06
tclose.

I think you are correct. What we saw was a Master in action. He explained so many things extremely well, and his satire really hit their mark squarely. There is nothing like intelligent wit to deflate windbags.

He took down, particularly, Ryan, who fancies himself quite the economist. Ryan and his lies were left broken and bleeding in the dirt.

Any independent voter with half a brain, got it I am sure. It was such a pleasure to see an expert in action.

I watched both conventions.... and there is simply no comparison. I know I am partial,
but the speeches this week were brilliant, and they had warmth and heart, and Clinton's ...a lot of wit.

Last week's speeches were shrill and nasty, and it was one l o n g tirade, about how everything was Obama's fault.
The speeches were downers all the way.
They stopped JUST short of accusing him of stealing the Lindberg baby.
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-09-07 11:12
Hitchens would not be attacking Clinton for that speech.
 
 
+188 # Barbara K 2012-09-06 07:11
I saw the entire Convention last night and Clinton's speech was truly spectacular. It should have left R/R breathless too. The people love Clinton and it showed last night. Clinton is a great speaker and has a great mind. He pretty much answered all the trash talk from the R/R side. It was a real surprise to see President Obama come out on the stage when Clinton finished his speech, people were even crying in the audience to see the two of them together. What an inspiration the entire experience was.

Go OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 !! There is no other way to stay free.
 
 
+77 # Independentgal 2012-09-06 09:53
Yes, Clinton has a great mind and so does Obama. The Republicans won't know what hit them when the debates start.
 
 
+35 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-06 11:30
Trash talk that is what this Campaign is.
I feel disgusted that that is the level of our intelligence.

Bravo Clinton. He is one of the best speakers out there. He looked very healthy also what a change from the Republicans
 
 
+17 # soularddave 2012-09-06 20:18
Lots of important points were made with sincerity and a touch of humor. Since lots of the rethuglical points are so laughable (Obama cause the crash??) It takes that certain humor to answer back.

Best laugh line? ... "Arithmetic!"
 
 
-52 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 07:13
Good grief folks, All very well and good, and Obama is our only choice for now, perhaps?? AND, none of the "bozos," (including well spoken but little substance Obama ((Monsanto dictating and in the FDA, etc, really?)) speak for anything resembling future health, sanity, or "justice," whatever that may be. Personally, I believe the Democrats AND the Republicans, ARE both insane and out to lunch, with policy which is neither survivable or "just."
I give you the profit based policy, of endless Wars, Waste, Banking, Fracking, GMO's, ever toxic (effectively) and non containable Nuclear Power and weapons (Fukushima is still going folks, and what ARE we doing to ensure future safety, oops...,) and the reduction of the global commons of nature, to $$ or individual ownership, and ultimately into lifeless, badly made and non repairable products, and wastelands of toxic landfills.
I support neither party of insane "crooks," and would suggest that we ALL get off our collective overly entitled consumer behinds, and begin being and living in a conservation based society and preserve something for a healthy or livable future. Nature cares little what our stupid rules and laws are, as it crumbles around us in crisis.
We (mostly) all just hop in and turn the key folks, as we consume and spew along, to all of our global, ever important events, and few of us seem to even know our neighbors, or care much for each other.......
 
 
+21 # kelly 2012-09-06 08:37
Good, good. You give all that and we could all probably go a bit farther but let me remind you:
Profit based policy is exactly what we need to survive. Whether you are a republican or a democrat. What you do with those profits is an entirely different matter. If you take those profits and put them into health care or education--or other places that might benefit society as a whole then what is the sin in making a profit? If it is profit for profit's sake...then we are back to the Randian philosophy. I do not agree with fracking or any of the things you mentioned but without any of things you mentioned, there would be no society. Okay you don't like the democrats. Do you really like the deregulating republicans more. Or are you merely an anarchist in an environmentalis t's clothing trying to foment an out-of-touch viewpoint?
 
 
+26 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 10:30
And with all of those things, there is no life, and no society. Out of touch? We continue to live outside of and as if the rules and laws of nature do not pertain to us, at our own peril.
Real profit is in healthy environments, and strong communities, human AND otherwise. Most of what we consider to be "profits" are little more than the rape and destruction of the commons of nature, and leaving lifeless wastes behind.
Anarchist, no, not really, but neither am I blind to our place in Nature.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Too many short sighted fools focused on the almighty $, allowing corporate nonsense, and policy which is not in the interests of anything's future health.
Oops. We are on a sinking ship folks. Do we choose to fix it, or continue ignoring the real underlying issues?
It's all about Nature, and natural systems folks, and ignoring that IS leading to disaster.
Money is worthless. Try farming near Fukushima, or drinking some water from a frack well. Bury your heads, work away, pay the interest to the bankers and drive on into oblivion.
We need real change. Yes, WE can? We shall see. Most of what I see is lip service and hype, on sale now, on all the channels.
 
 
+5 # mdhome 2012-09-08 03:54
If you think the democrats are bad I have to say the republicans plans are 10 times worse, you cant expect a complete turn around when the house is controlled by republicans and the senate has the filibuster If we get a democrat house (unlikely) and a filibuster proof democrat senate, you will see the situation turn around, but it is a very big ship to turn around, patience is needed.
 
 
+10 # DaveEwoldt 2012-09-06 13:37
Kelly, you have a couple of mistaken assumptions that require correcting. The first is that profit is _not_ necessary for survival. The opposite is true because nature is finite. This is a simple math problem I wish someone with Clinton's stature would honestly address. and yes, there is an alternative economic system available, and no, it's not socialism.

Second, you seem to have a liberal mainstream misunderstandin g of anarchism as well. Anarchists are opposed to coercive hierarchies and illegitimate authority. They are not anti-government , anti-business, or anti-organizati on. Cooperative networks of bioregional consensus governance using steady-state economics would be perfectly in line with anarchist thought. Like most of the status quo, you seem to take joy in intentionally confusing anarchy with nihilism. Since cooperative networks are actually the organizing principle of life, the anarchist's viewpoint is much more in touch with reality than _anything_ on the political radar today.
 
 
+6 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:17
A "profit based policy" is exactly what has destroyed our economy and is at the root of all that is wrong with capitalist economics.

Why should we not be saying that health care is not a business, not a commodity and should not be run for profits. The same should be said regarding education.

To say that a "profit based policy" is exactly what we need to survive" could easily be said by a conservative republican regarding the need to privatize everything from schools to prisons etc.

A "profit based policy" is a Ranian philosophy no matter how you try and sugar coat it.

The answer is to reject "profit" as the basis for running our economy in the first place.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2012-09-07 10:23
Maximizing Profit based policy is exactly what we need to survive?
Profit based policy is exactly what we need to extinct ..
USA is bankrupt both financially and morally by militaristic debt - maximizing profit at any cost.
 
 
+2 # dovelane1 2012-09-08 00:46
I won't go so far as to say that making a profit is a bad thing. However, I believe those in power, the 1% and coporations, bankers, and so on, don't want to make a profit - they want to make a killing. The end result, as has been mentioned, is that we are in the process of killing everyone and everything, just so that a few people can make a 'killing.'

As I've mentioned several times, to a wise person, enough is as good as a feast. To those who want to make a 'killing,' there will never be enough. If one took all the money in the world, and divided it between the 1% and their ilk, there still wouldn't be enough, and they would be thinking of ways to get what everyone else had.

When amassing a fortune is the bottom line, people and the environment will eventually suffer. We are close to the point where a lot of people are already suffering, and there is more to come.

For those who oppose abortion, what is more rational - to limit the number of people to the amount of resources available, or allow children to be born and then die of starvation and/or dehydration? As I understand it, 36,000 children die everyday of starvation/dehydration.

The bull may not be in our immediate china shop, but it is on its way. By the time the 'normal' person realizes what's happening, it may be too late. (rephrase of Barry Commoner)
 
 
-34 # akh752 2012-09-06 09:19
What is, is. What is not, is not. Have a good life in that new society you'll be living in -- sounds quite monastic.
 
 
+6 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 09:36
Judging from the thumbs down on your comment, Barkingcarpet, truth is either not well received anymore.... or the Obama camp has their trolls out in force this morning.... or both.

Taking apart Romney is no great accomplishment. It doesn't take someone with the oratorical skills of Clinton.

A five year old could do it.

Romney is a liar alright, but not a very good one.

Too transparent and easily seen through.

Obama is a shoe-in for re-election
http://antemedius.com/content/obama-shoe-2012-re-election

The two party con job is the biggest lie there is.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:49
Do you have a viable alternative to the two-party system we can implement in the next few weeks? Sucker punching us into voting for one of the several 3rd party candidates who are polling at around 1% won't serve any purpose but handing the Presidency to Romney.

Is that your real goal?
 
 
0 # Hey There 2012-09-06 20:57
Just had to give you a + as I agree with all of what you wrote in the first paragraph, but I wouldn't call politicians "insane" having in mind the saying "Crazy like a Fox".
 
 
-28 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 07:13
The "system" is busted, having little resemblance to a republic or a democracy, more akin to a corporate dictatorship teetering along, criminally, aided by both party's. There have been those who suggested love and take care of each other, etc. How many of us really care, beyond our own personal empires, thermostats, or soft mattresses?
"More of the same" everyday, business as usual, politics, policy, and thinking, for or "buy" either and all parties, is nothing less than continued b.s. and the destruction of most any future worth living in.
Yes, WE can.... (how is that for the ultimate bs line of hot air n fluff sold and packaged in the last erection 4 years agoo) What do, and are we choosing? more of the usual b.s. or ?? The choice IS ours. What will the future say about our choices, providing we survive....... and things do not look good environmentally . All life is supported by the commons of nature, not by $ or economic development, nor by trading living environments for products. How do we live WITHIN the laws of nature, and not as if nature were infinite, inexhaustible, and belonging to humans. We ARE terrible stewards, and it is beyond time to change, and choose differently.
 
 
+65 # Linda 2012-09-06 08:14
Tell me Barkingcarpet how does your negativity help the situation we are in ? At least Obama is doing his best to change things against some pretty tough odds .
What are you doing ?
 
 
-18 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 09:37
What is he doing?

He's trying to wake you up.

But it's not working, apparently...
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:51
What is the end game. After "waking us up", what next? Just give up by allowing Mittens to invade Iran, destroy Social Security, and destroy Medicare?

I'm having a hard time seeing how any of that will help.
 
 
+25 # Jerry 2012-09-06 17:15
If woken, perhaps enough people would get out to vote for as many progressive democrats as are running. Obama needs to be pushed to the left, and everyone needs to be on his case if he is re-elected.
 
 
+6 # Hey There 2012-09-06 21:02
I would hit the + sign 100 times but they won't allow it. well said.
 
 
+3 # mdhome 2012-09-08 04:00
Agreed.
 
 
-3 # Jerry 2012-09-06 10:23
What have you been smoking? Obama didn't have to bail out the banks. Joseph Stiglitz points out chapter 13's could have handled the crisis. He didn't have to let the scum that caused the financial crash get away with their fraud, but he did, and he even let them keep their jobs and have bonuses while we proped up their companies. He didn't have to ask the Senate to give him the power to murder and disappear U.S. citizens, or any other people, but he did. He didn't have to refuse to prosecute torture perpetrators, and those that committed the war of aggression - the Iraq war, but he did. He didn't have to start negotiations in the middle and move to the right, but he did. He didn't have to let the Republicans succeed in their debt ceiling blackmail, but he did. He doesn't have to cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, but he says he will.
As Barkingcarpet says, Obama may be the best we can get at this point in time, but there are far better running on third party tickets. And letting Obama know we are far from happy with his policies is necessary. And broadcasting the positions and poling on all candidates in future elections so that the electorate can see the viability of all the candidates could move our country back to a rational democracy.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:52
He also didn't have to keep us free from another war with Iran. He also didn't have to fight the repugs for Social Security, or against the tar sands pipeline.
 
 
+3 # Jerry 2012-09-06 17:12
True, he could have ignored international treaties again, and started an Iran war, but that still may happen after the election. He didn't fight the repugs for SS, or against the tar sands pipeline. So far he has only postponed action. He OKed the southern part of the pipeline. And he has not ruled out cuts in SS, Medicare, or Medicade.
 
 
-1 # Hey There 2012-09-06 21:04
I'm with you
 
 
-12 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 10:32
More than most lemmings. http://lookingglass.blog.co.uk/2012/09/02/the-further-adventures-of-love-heals-14656776/
 
 
+1 # DaveEwoldt 2012-09-06 13:58
Ah, yes, the reality as negativity argument. Contrary to moral relativity, not all views are equally valid. Some support life, and some don't. Compromising with a paradigm that is fundamentally anti-life is hard for me to reconcile with doing one's best to change anything at all.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:54
President Mittens WILL invade Iran. How does that fit in with your pro-life paradigm? Would you like to stop him? There's only one way you can.
 
 
+2 # mdhome 2012-09-08 04:03
That is a for certain fact, no bones about it.
 
 
+6 # pernsey 2012-09-07 05:10
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
Ah, yes, the reality as negativity argument. Contrary to moral relativity, not all views are equally valid. Some support life, and some don't. Compromising with a paradigm that is fundamentally anti-life is hard for me to reconcile with doing one's best to change anything at all.


Pro life and pro death penalty that one always kills me lol.
 
 
+3 # Doubter 2012-09-06 08:36
I don't understand why you get so many negatives. Your message might sound negative but it is realistic!
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:03
I dare say his makes some relevent points, ideally, anyway.
 
 
+37 # Buddha 2012-09-06 09:09
Obama may not be the "solution", but in a two-party system, where the choice is between "OK" and "terrible", I know which I am going to choose. I will continue to fight against the corrupt system we have, will attend Occupy protests again if they can get back on their feet after being crushed by Obama's stormtroopers. But right now, Obama is the best choice we have, and I will not sit this out and give it to Robme/Lyin' and their band of merry Plutocrats. And Obama HAS finally taken some brave stands recently (defending openly choice during a convention, ending DODT, putting support of gay marriage on the platform and challenging his own "black churches" base stance on this, etc).
 
 
+19 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 10:41
Obama always has been and will be a great speaker. I just expected more. There has been too much air. No meaningful prosecution of the banking fraudustry, and continual environmental tragedy for policy.

We need to do better. Nature IS tanking, regardless of what we think or feel, and greenwashing or business as usual is just disaster in progress.

Spin has spun, too much professing fluff, and too little substance, with zero accountability. $ profit seems to be all folks care about, and well, good luck with the wishful thinking. What is the overall profit in creating and leaving wastelands in our wake?
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 15:58
I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, we have to take this one step at a time. Since we can't replace Obama from the left and replacing him from the right will make things worse, we have to cope with reality and keep fighting.
 
 
+5 # kurt.cagle@gmail.com 2012-09-07 11:52
Here's the challenge - the system itself is collapsing, albeit (as with most collapses) stochastically. A presidential candidate who made this admission, however, would need to deal with the fact that most people in the US cannot and will not see it, and will in fact shoot the messenger. Ron Paul has hinted at it, has threatened to pull back the curtain and shown the teetering ediface backstage, but he has also been shut out, quite effectively, but that self same status quo that is FULLY invested in business as usual (this from a non-Libertarian).

I don't believe in 2008 when Obama became president, he saw this. I think Obama in 2012 does, but he has the very tricky job of trying to figure out how prepare for afterwards while still getting elected. Romney is clueless.

Obama's job is seemingly simple (and like all seemingly simple jobs requires a great deal of balancing and hard work): transition from a corrupt, broken system to a working one, without collapsing the system entirely. In the end, he'll probably not be completely successful - I think the steady-state bio-region idea mentioned above is where we'll end up over time, but that time is measured in half-century intervals.
 
 
+17 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:02
Nowadays especially, I would like to get politically and openly to the point, a little similar to your post. Right now, it's a pathetic situation. Both "parties" try to look different from each other but are ideologically the same, despite tactical diffferences. Still the Repubs have by now proven to be literally and certifiably insane. Thus, they are still a bigger threat. But I admit I'm tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils."
 
 
+1 # Hey There 2012-09-06 21:00
One more +
 
 
+98 # moonrigger 2012-09-06 07:28
Thank God Clinton took R&R to task on every single lie, while providing the undecideds the facts they'll need come voting day. He did it with grace, intelligence, and humor--without resorting to the pompous self-centeredne ss & negativity we heard from Christie et al. I was also impressed with Elizabeth Warren's speech. She's got an all-American, down-to-earth Jimmy Stewart way of telling it straight from the heart. Might we see a Hillary Clinton-Elizabe th Warren ticket in 2016? Now THAT would be a great followup to an Obama win!
 
 
+122 # Alice 2012-09-06 07:34
I will vote for President Obama no matter who gives the best speeches, because in the back of my mind are two little words: Robert Bork. That is who is advising Romney on court selections. That's all I needed to know.
 
 
+16 # Gryzelda 2012-09-06 14:36
Yes, one thing I have NOT heard during the DNC is anything about the Supreme Court. The next president will likely get to appoint 2 SC justices, and those will probably serve for 20+ years. Would you rather have Obama or Mittens making those appointments?
 
 
0 # mdhome 2012-09-08 04:09
not to mention (WWIII) John Bolton!
 
 
-63 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 07:46
A good speach? yes. we'd expect nothing less from Slick Willy. But, this was also the guy that:

1) got rid of Glass-Steagal and appointed (larry summers) or reappointed (alan greenspan) the folks that deregulated the financial industry which brought on the financial crisis

2) "ended welfare as we know it" that threw tons of folks off the roles

3) who mainly "created" low-wage non-union jobs while supporting "free trade" agreements that fueled US corporate outsourcing

4) promoted the sanctions against Iraq that killed at least 500,000 children; a "price" that was "worth it" according to his Secretary of State (madeline not-so algright)

5) to deflect attention from his first sex scandal (jennifer flowers) went home to arkansas to preside over the execution of a man so mentally retarted that even the "law and order" conservative republican prosecutor said should not be executed (not to mention the bombing of baby formula factories or using international weapons inspecters as spies).

7) Sanctioned (through CIA involvement) the illegal military coup/overthrow of the democratically elected President of Haiti (Aristide) and, in more recent times, as the defacto president of Haiti has promoted more low-wage sweat shop type "industrial zones" in haiti as his "econonomic development" plan

So, it's one thing to praise the speach but at least remember from whom it comes and what he actually did as Pres.
 
 
-28 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 08:26
Interesting that i now have 8 thumbs down but no comments about any of the facts presented. Did clinton not do these things or if he did are you saying they were good things? Guess "we" are no more concerned with "fact checkers" than the rethuglicans. Sad.
 
 
-20 # edge 2012-09-06 09:28
You should take "thumbs down" as a badge of honor here!
 
 
-12 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 10:06
Quoting edge:
You should take "thumbs down" as a badge of honor here!


lol...never thought about it that way...

i don't mind the thumbs down but i have no patience for the thumbs down with no comment to know what the thumbs down was for...that's the only way to have a discussion but clearly these folks are not interested in talking to anyone other than themselves or those that agree with them 100%.
 
 
+3 # Kiwikid 2012-09-06 10:31
I gave a thumbs down because, while truthful, the attack was mean-spirited and not appropriate now. Timing is everything, and yours is off.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 11:17
Quoting Kiwikid:
I gave a thumbs down because, while truthful, the attack was mean-spirited and not appropriate now. Timing is everything, and yours is off.


Kiwikid, i hear ya though i don't think it is mean spirited to discuss Clinton's actual record nor do i believe that it is ever bad timing to do so. if it were done to say "see there's no difference between the dems and the repubs" or use this in some way to say don't vote for Obama (though i do believe in "stragtegic voting" in states like NY or Cal. where we could vote for a progressive alternative to try and build some leverage over the dems without risking throwing the state to the repubs)...but i never said any such thing... i was merely saying that while i thought it was a good speach we should remember from whom it came and what his actual record was. Don't think this is mean-spirited or that there is ever a "bad time" to keep all of these guys accountable for their actions.
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2012-09-06 14:09
Not appropriate now... hmm... since this particular argument has been used by "progressives" for the past 150 years, ever since they squashed the populist movement that was threatening big business, could you let us know when you think it might be appropriate?
 
 
+7 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:18
I must agree with your post above about Clinton. The assertions are credible. I would find the "sex scandal" to be the least of his wrongdoings. What is worse, a blowjob, etc., or another imperial war blatantly based on lies and with the inevitable suddering and deaths? (Yeah, Bushite proto-fascism.) STILL, although I find the current U.S. political situation to be pathetic, the Repubs have shown to be the bigger threat, given their leaders' and supporters' politcally braindead insanity. I really would like the inevitability of a Left/Progressiv e coalition or party to take power to create real, irreversible change; which would mean-given the mentality of potential opposition being what I would consider, more than likely, to be counterrevoluti onary, and yes, that would include the two "parties" currently in power given their ideological sameness-that it would have to be indefinate rule since this would mean a major change from one epoch to another, gradually, etc. For this kind of change, it looks like this is the likely scenario. (But who really knows?)
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 16:00
You could also take as proof that your opinions are wildly unpopular and your strategy/agenda isn't working.
 
 
-5 # edge 2012-09-07 07:25
Quoting Billy Bob:
You could also take as proof that your opinions are wildly unpopular and your strategy/agenda isn't working.


Nah!

You folks are just opposed to facts and put a thumbs down to anything that is rational.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-09-07 10:49
Nah!

Us folks are just waiting for you to present us with some facts which make it ok to elect romney.
 
 
+16 # Independentgal 2012-09-06 09:57
Actually, I was wondering where you got your facts from, and I'm waiting to see your sources cited. Thanks.
 
 
+13 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 10:32
Quoting Independentgal:
Actually, I was wondering where you got your facts from, and I'm waiting to see your sources cited. Thanks.


A fair question:

1) Glass-Steagal was repealed in 1994 while Clinton was Pres. and he had to sign it for it to go into effect.

2)here is one non-partisan analysis of the effects of Clinton's "welfare reform"

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3019

3)here is two analyses of US wages/job creation but there are many, many others

http://www.dlc.org/documents/Atkinson_bookchapter_0705.pdf

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ASA%20presentation%20--%20Globalization%20&%20work%20panel%20--%20final%20version.pdf

4)the number of 500,000 children killed as a result of the sanctions comes from a report issued by the United Nations Childrens Fund

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm

5) here is wikipedia's summary (there are many other articles on this one) about Clinton presiding over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

6) As for the 1st coup that overthrew President Aristide see:

http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/EconomicTerrorismReport.htm

there are many, many more articles and sources on the coup, Aristide, Haiti and the US role.
 
 
+17 # lneidhold 2012-09-06 10:31
You seem to be so quagmired in the 90's that you have missed the point Clinton made in his speech... and, fact checking you regarding Clinton's record is not what this election is about. Clinton was addressing the Republican stonewalling that is taking place today. As brilliant and informed as you seem to be, it seems that your energies would be better spent trying to address that stonewalling, rather than sulking over the indiscretions of a President from another century.
 
 
-4 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 11:19
Quoting lneidhold:
You seem to be so quagmired in the 90's that you have missed the point Clinton made in his speech... and, fact checking you regarding Clinton's record is not what this election is about. Clinton was addressing the Republican stonewalling that is taking place today. As brilliant and informed as you seem to be, it seems that your energies would be better spent trying to address that stonewalling, rather than sulking over the indiscretions of a President from another century.


I'm hardly "quagmired" in the 90s or any other decade. But, when someone (anyone) says something i think it's important to know who its coming from and what that person actually stands for and does. given all of the uncritical praise for clinton that preceded my comments i thought it appropriate to point out some things about his record. Don't think having a sense of history (as opposed to the typical US state of historical amnesia) means one is "quagmired" in the past.
 
 
-11 # DaveEwoldt 2012-09-06 14:15
Dem apologists sure are good at rationalization . The effects of dropping critical analysis skills from the public education curriculum over 100 years ago is starkly apparent in the loss of the ability to connect the dots.

The Republicans aren't stonewalling. They are providing cover for Obama to do to this country what the shrub couldn't get away with.
 
 
+8 # MJnevetS 2012-09-06 11:11
dkon, I'll try to answer your 7 (6) points:

1. You're joking right?! June 2, 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was also appointed by G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush, but it is Clinton whom you blame for Greenspan's policies (BTW Greenspan was an Ayn Rand devotee, a la the current Repub ticket, so if you want to distance yourself from that, vote Obama!)

2. The The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) the law had strong support of the US Chamber of Commerce. While it was signed into law by Clinton, Republicans pushed for it. IF you are BLAMING Clinton, better take a look at your Republican ticket, because they have doubled down on bad policy.

3. Unfortunately, as a 'centrist', he did push for NAFTA and other international trade agreements, and convinced enough Democrats to pass same (again, Repubs were already fully on board, so WHAT is your point?)

cont'd.
 
 
+6 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 11:25
I was not blaming clinton for Reagan or Bush's appointment of Greenspan but yes, i do think he should be blamed and held accountable for reappointing him. I don't see what's wrong with that position.

2) Same goes for the repeal of Welfare (something which Robert Reich, who seems to be so beloved by so many on this board) quit over

3) I see nothing "centrist" in Nafta (we now rail against Romney for having overseas bank accounts but don't critique clinton's "free trade" policies that have fueled all of the outsourcing of american jobs?), welfare reform, the sanctions in Iraq, the coup against Aristide, the draconian crack drug laws, etc.,

It is a real problem that sinc the dems as a whole have moved so far to the right (compared with "old school" liberals) that clinton is now the "new normal" and is called a "centrist"
 
 
+6 # MJnevetS 2012-09-06 11:28
Cont'd.

4. On Aug. 2, 1990, in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 661, imposing comprehensive multilateral international sanctions on Iraq. They were enforced under the G.H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations . The choice was not Clinton's, but under his presidency the US did abide by the sanctions (as we did under Bush 1)

5. "so mentally retarted" (sic) (hello pot, this is kettle calling) No, Ricky Ray Rector was NOT RETARDED. After he shot and injured 2 people and murdered a third, he agreed to turn himself in to Officer Robert Martin, whom he had known since childhood. When Martin went to get Rector, he 1st spoke with Rector's mother, greeted Rector and turned to finish the conversation with Rector's mother at which time Rector shot Martin 2 times in the back. He then put his own gun to his head and shot himself, performing a self-inflicted lobotomy. Thus, when he committed the crime he was fully aware of what he was doing, it was his failed suicide that caused brain damage thus under the more recent Supreme Court ruling banning execution of someone of limited mental capacity, Rector would likely still be subject to the death penalty as any limitations did not pre-exist the crime.

7. Aristide took office in February 2001, it was G.W. Bush who aided his overthrow!
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 12:02
4) Clinton did not initiate the sanctions but he greatly expanded them and kept them going for another 8 years. and, it was his secretary of state who explicitly said the "price" of 1/2 million dead children was "worth it".

5) great, you got me in a typo...if what you say is correct than why did the conservative republican prosecutor say that this man should not be executed precisely because he was so mentally retarded?

6) do another google search about Aristide and Haiti. You are correct, there was a coup, a second coup, against Aristide in 2001 but the first one (Aristide was President twice) was in 1991 while Clinton was in office and much has come out over the years about the role of the CIA in this one.
 
 
+3 # kurt.cagle@gmail.com 2012-09-07 13:26
Clinton wasn't in office in 1991. George GW Bush was. Clinton wasn't sworn in until January 1993.
 
 
+11 # Doubter 2012-09-06 08:45
"Nobody is perfect"
 
 
+3 # SMoonz 2012-09-06 09:17
Sad, but true.
I can also add that he decreased the amount of Financial Aid students qualified for. He helped cut student grants which in turn forced many of us to rely more and sometimes exclusively on student loans. This wound up leaving a generation of us relying more on debt.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 16:02
You could also add that it still wasn't enough for repugs and Mittens wants to do away with ALL federal student aid ALTOGETHER.
 
 
+5 # karlarove 2012-09-06 18:11
Yes, all those facts are true. But Clinton isn't running for President, Obama is. And while we are at it, what Republican president started a war on the premise of a lie? And what Republican President warned us of the military industrial complex? He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. At this point the very real reality is which candidate is a better choice for ALL Americans? Not just the .0001 percent. Romney would start where Bush left off.
 
 
-117 # jimattrell 2012-09-06 07:55
He did great but he skipped over the huge debt and high unemployment and didn't mention God being removed from the platform. That was very disappointing.
 
 
+82 # Linda 2012-09-06 08:19
What is it about Separation of Church and State that you don't understand?
It seems you all on the christian right say how much you want our government to follow the laws of the Constitution and yet you don't want to follow it when it comes to leaving your religion out of politics !Get over it !
 
 
-22 # jimattrell 2012-09-06 12:23
Separation is a one way stop sign to Govt staying out of church.... Never the other way around. Last time I looked God was still on our currency and in our Constitution. Get over that please.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-09-06 16:12
Separation of church and state works both ways whether the right-wing likes it or not.

Our God references in our currency were from the red scare of the 1930s. And the only reference to God in the Constitution is in reference to government not respecting any religion. That means, BY DEFINITION, that religion has no place in government.

Since there is no universal religion, there is no way to involve religion in government without infringing on the religious freedom of anyone who disagrees.
 
 
+4 # pernsey 2012-09-07 05:20
Your so upset about the separation your going to vote for a Mormon? That makes a lot of sense...NOT!
 
 
0 # dovelane1 2012-09-08 01:31
JM - At this point in time, the existence of God is still an opinion, not a fact. If it were a fact, you'd prove it, right?

I have no problem with anyone having an opinion. I have a problem with people who believe an opinion to be a fact, when they can't prove it.

Another problem I have is that you want your opinion to govern everyone else in the country. You want your opinion to be more important than other opinions, and you want power over any opinions that differ from yours. What exactly does that say about you?

What you consider a fact is the point where you and your kind have stopped asking questions. My guess is it's more comfortable for you that way. It beats thinking, and for people with your dogmatic approach to life, thinking can be uncomfortable.

And, of course, you believe that because "all your friends think the same, you think you've won." (from a song I wrote.)

One thing that is mostly impossible for zealots to say is "I might be wrong." I would extend that to most of the ultra- Republican party. Trouble is, when you get one party or group of people acting like they are God's chosen, it invites everyone they come into contact with, to act the same way. That's how vicious circles get started.

Because your beliefs are merely opinions, it would help to drop the arrogance, and add the words "I might be wrong" to your vocabulary. I could be wrong about the arrogance, but I doubt it.
 
 
+43 # CAMUS1111 2012-09-06 08:32
god will get over it
 
 
+3 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:22
Yeah, god is the supreme being. He/she/it can get over everything. Well, except at least for jealousy and vengence. (Hmmm... now he/she/it doesn't sound so supreme with the obvious human flaws.)
 
 
+16 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 08:35
Quoting jimattrell:
He did great but he skipped over the huge debt and high unemployment and didn't mention God being removed from the platform. That was very disappointing.


not only did they put god "back in" the platform but also that Jerusalem is to be the "undivided" capital of Israel...so much for progress.
 
 
+3 # kurt.cagle@gmail.com 2012-09-07 13:32
Obama is a pragmatist. I'm agnostic, personally think that the God flap in the platform is a non-issue, but not having it in there could very well be a deciding factor for the Midwest states, as silly as that is. The Jerusalem issue is more problematic - Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by most nations because of the multiple religious claims on that city by different faiths. For Obama to put it back in is puzzling, as he'd continued the same neutrality that every President from Eisenhower has had regarding that issue. Makes me suspect that there is a communication problem here.
 
 
+1 # dovelane1 2012-09-08 01:43
I am continually wondering what pressure or demands are put on Obama, and by whom. I also wonder who he listens to, and why. I've heard he listens to Soros, and I'm not sure what to think about that.

I've heard that when gays come out of the closet, and tell the truth, a lot of the pressure on them to keep things secret is gone. It's an A.A. quote that goes "Not keeping secrets is the same as telling the truth."

I keep wondering if Obama is keeping secrets, and, if so, what are they, and what is being used to make him keep those secrets.

There are two ways of lying - commission and ommission; they out-right lie, and the not telling the whole truth. I know Romney and Ryan are committing lies. I wonder if Obama is ommitting information.

Both ways are used to control responses. Is one worse than the other? Are their mitigating factors?

As I mentioned in another post, I believe in this idea: only cowards lie. It is the fear behind the lie that determines the eventual outcomes.

What, and who, and how many, are behind the curtain?
 
 
+16 # rockieball 2012-09-06 08:35
Well he did mention the first two. And as for God being removed from the platform to me it's a violation of separation to put it in. That swings both ways the government cannot dictate to the church what to preach and the church cannot dictate what laws to pass. You cannot tell what to believe in or not to believe in and neither can the government. You cannot tell me what or who to pray or even to pray to and neither can the government. The separation is a wall between government and religion and must remain a wall.
 
 
+28 # akh752 2012-09-06 09:39
He talked about the debt and unemployment. You missed it.

"The Republican argument, said Clinton, is essentially: 'we left him a total mess. But he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough so fire him and put us back in.' Then Clinton turned to the real problem with the Romney-Ryan plan: 'arithmetic.' "
 
 
+3 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:20
You would find it more comfortable living during the Inquisitions, the Dark Ages, etc. given, e.g., the implied religious ferver.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:23
Quoting David Starr:
You would find it more comfortable living during the Inquisitions, the Dark Ages, etc. given, e.g., the implied religious ferver.


Actually, i think the "dark ages" have been "misnamed" (and given a bad rap) and in fact was a period (between the fall of the roman empire and the cementing of the Church's control and the rise of the feudal nation states) in which more people had more control over their own lives (and their time) than at any time before or since. Most people still lived off "the commons" and were self-sufficient . They were not yet forced into wage slavery after the enclosure laws threw them off their land nor were they yet subject to the absolute control of the church (and the powers of the Inquisition) nor the state.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-09-07 10:12
Thanks for specific details on that period. Perhaps the term Dark Ages is used because of some gloom and doom mentality based on the fall of a civilization,i. e., the fall of the most powerful empire of the time. And it was a shock. Perhaps no one expected it. I'll give the benefit of the doubt about "the commons" scenario. But, then there were the obvious "developments" after that as you imply with the totalitarian-li ke control of the Church, and the resulting consequences. I guess that period could be called the Dark Ages just as much as the Dark Ages.
 
 
+3 # kurt.cagle@gmail.com 2012-09-07 13:38
The Dark Ages are so called because the largely literate societies of the Roman empire had faded while the preliterate Celtic and Germanic tribes lacked a written tradition to fill in the details. It's historically dark, nothing else. By all indications it was no more or less filled with waves of invading tribes out of the Cacausus mountains than before Rome fell to those same tribes (and the Eastern capital of Constantinople became the de facto capital of the Roman empire) and the time 500 years later that a critical mass of monastaries had been created in the Franco-Germanic regions and Brittania in the 6th and 7th centuries to start providing some kind of an historical log again.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 12:08
To quote: "The Dark Ages are so called because the largely literate societies of the Roman empire had faded while the preliterate Celtic and Germanic tribes lacked a written tradition to fill in the details." Valid point.
 
 
+82 # Pwarren 2012-09-06 07:56
The current Republican party is a party of pure white destructionists . They command and destroy everything and everyone who is not of their liking. The planet is theirs to do with what they will. Period - the end and they will brook no interferance.
Its an arrogant,strang e and twisted mind set and the Demos are (for the most part)the complete oposite.
The Repugs offer me deprivation and death - the Demos hope and a chance.
Guess which one I choose?
 
 
+59 # natalierosen 2012-09-06 08:10
Bill Clinton took the small breeze out of whatever Republican sails had left. Their sailboat has now crashed on the rocks and disintegrated! GREAT, FABULOUS, convention the most wonderful I have ever in decades seen and I watched it all. ALL the speakers were terrific but special kudos to the First Lady and of course to President William Jefferson Clinton the Magnificant.

Kudos too to the MSNBC team -- they are the best of the absolute best INCLUDING even the conservative analysis of Steve Schmidt. Twer conservatives like he remenicinet of a time I could talk to a Republican. It is hard to do that now. I was MESMERIZED by the convention. Thank you Democratic Party for NOT letting us down.

Work for and Re-elect the president and of course the great Elizabeth Warren for US Senate from Massachusetts!
 
 
-3 # reiverpacific 2012-09-06 08:24
As Clinton himself said right in our faces, "No matter what you think of me and my record---"!
I actually expected a bunch of RSN purer- lefty-than-thou -nay-sayers but nobody can say the Big Billy-Bob C' claimed to be lily-white.
I'm well aware of the fact that he glided conveniently over some his policy shortcomings ("We moved millions off welfare into work" or words to that effect a.k.a. "We dismantled a large part of the safety net for the poor and disadvantaged") , didn't even touch on NAFTA and GATT (or SHAFTA and SHATT) and even gave Dimwits some ill-deserved credit for going to Haiti with him -but thankfully, turned back the destruction of the economy to the heart of where it belonged.
There was other somewhat contradictory stuff but even so, my wife and I were riveted and impressed by the fact-filled departures from the teleprompter and the fluency of delivery of stark facts seeming off the cuff and embellished with a good deal of factual extemporization , delivered with a sense of sly humor but carefully controlled passion.
He could sell popsicles to Inuits for sure!
One very disappointing missing element from what seemed like a very "Rainbow" audience and speakers, was no mention of the plight of the Native Peoples, still the poorest and with the shortest life span in the country, nor did I see any American Indians in the camera shots but I didn't watch the entire MSNBC coverage except for the principal speakers. Anybody else think of this?
 
 
+17 # mjc 2012-09-06 10:03
Even "purer-lefty-th an-thou-naysaye rs have no reason to dis Bill Clinton. Many of us disagreed with the welfare-to-work , and other less liberal moves Clinton made but there is nothing, zero, agreement with any of the Ryan/Romney plans...or unstated designs on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security not to mention the lies that the Teapublicans have let lie as to women's rights. There can't be any reason NOT to vote for Obama and not to encourage as many individuals as you can to vote for Obama. Native Americans ARE underrepresente d for sure in both major parties. That is a good issue that many could join with you in urging attention from the Democrats.
 
 
-13 # dkonstruction 2012-09-06 10:36
Quoting mjc:
Even "purer-lefty-than-thou-naysayers have no reason to dis Bill Clinton. Many of us disagreed with the welfare-to-work, and other less liberal moves Clinton made but there is nothing, zero, agreement with any of the Ryan/Romney plans...or unstated designs on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security not to mention the lies that the Teapublicans have let lie as to women's rights. There can't be any reason NOT to vote for Obama and not to encourage as many individuals as you can to vote for Obama. Native Americans ARE underrepresented for sure in both major parties. That is a good issue that many could join with you in urging attention from the Democrats.


"no reason to dis clinton"? One can say that it was a good speach and even that we need to vote for Obama so that we don't get Romney/Ryan but that should in no way excuse either historical amnesia or out and out revionism to try and "reinvent" bill clinton and turn him into the president or the politician he never was.
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2012-09-06 11:16
Quoting mjc:
Even "purer-lefty-than-thou-naysayers have no reason to dis Bill Clinton. Many of us disagreed with the welfare-to-work, and other less liberal moves Clinton made but there is nothing, zero, agreement with any of the Ryan/Romney plans...or unstated designs on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security not to mention the lies that the Teapublicans have let lie as to women's rights. There can't be any reason NOT to vote for Obama and not to encourage as many individuals as you can to vote for Obama. Native Americans ARE underrepresented for sure in both major parties. That is a good issue that many could join with you in urging attention from the Democrats.

Actually, if y'all READ my post carefully, I wasn't "dissing" Billy-Bob -quite the opposite: I wish I had his powers of oratory. I was predicting some nay-sayers which was herein fulfilled, whilst pointing out some fairly egregious points that he glided over.I'm probably a lot farther left than most Americans. I just don't get to vote as I'm not a US citizen (but I am still involved vocally and in print as they take my taxes) but I DO advocate for Obama, especially with the only unthinkable alternative being the hate-filled (as B.C. stated) party of "NO!" And not just for the US's sake but for the planet's.
Sorry y'all picked me up wrong but what the Hell, a few "thumbs-down" never hurt anybody and will teach me put my points out more clearly in future.
 
 
-4 # David Starr 2012-09-06 11:27
Yeah, Clinton was determined to pass NAFTA, and other politcal/econom ic B/S complementing it. The Repubs must have been pissing in their pants with joy: A better chance to leech off of the working clas: Canadian, U.S., Mexican; and with other potential "working class stiffs" having to oppose more "free" (for whom really? trade "agreements."
 
 
+25 # Smokey 2012-09-06 09:04
American Indians in the camera shots at the Democratic convention? Well, I saw lots of people, with different colors represented, and I didn't know which ones were Native Americans and which ones were not.... Clinton's speech was great. In particular, I give high marks to his Medicaid comments. If Medicaid is destroyed, it will be a nightmare for the people - most of them elderly - who depend on long-term care. Tell that to any of your senior friends who are thinking about voting for the Republicans.... Vote for Obama. After that, go out an organize, organize, organize for a better future.... Liberals, especially, often expect too much from elected officials. It's the grassroots movements - the labor movement, the womens movement, the consumer rights movement, etc. - that build the pressure that makes social progress possible. Often, the politicians just move like the rooster on the weathervane. The rooster tells you which way the winding is blowing. He doesn't cause the winds and he can't change the weather.
 
 
+2 # Gryzelda 2012-09-06 17:47
I saw a political cartoon somewhere on the web that portrayed Mittens as a giant windsock. I wish I had printed it, it seems entirely appropriate...j ust like a rooster on a weathervane.
 
 
+32 # wwway 2012-09-06 09:09
The Romney campaign and FOX are talking gibberish this morning. A friend came over early and told us to tune in so we did. OMG these people sound
like crazed wild dogs! What they are saying about Sister Campbell and Sandra Fluke is simply evil.
When comparing the two conventions I have to say that Republicans had their lie fest. I'm reminded of a saying. "When you lie you steal a persons right to deal with the truth." Republicans are thieves and have no regard for truth or rights. Their words and legislative actions prove that.
 
 
+4 # dovelane1 2012-09-08 01:57
The liars punishment is not that they are not believed; it is that they cannot believe anyone else is telling the truth.

I think most of the time, liars tell themselves that others really do not want to hear the truth, and so, as I read it once, they "rationalize their phoniness into nobility."

Not only do we need people to speak the truth, we need people who want to hear it. The Republican crowd apparently doesn't want to hear the whole truth, just the part that supports thier agendas and opinions. As an earlier article said, blind, unquestioning obedience is a problem for everyone but the 1% and other Republican leaders.
 
 
+7 # Buddha 2012-09-06 09:13
All well and good, but who beyond us in "the choir" actually watched this? I looked at the ratings, and only about 7M Americans were watching it on ABC + CBS, 1/3 of the number who were watching the NFL game on NBC at the time! Bubba's speech was awesome...but a tree that falls in the forest when nobody is around makes no sound...
 
 
+7 # juliajayne 2012-09-06 10:17
It's still getting play today for those that didn't see it. I expect it will continue to get play until Obama speaks tonight and perhaps beyond.
 
 
-15 # seeuingoa 2012-09-06 09:41
Barkingcarpet is right!

two/thirds of Americans are fat, stupid and triggerhappy.
They love fastfood and "Gladiator" and
are ready to buy all the Clinton sugar-
coating.
Why didn´t we hear Bill dismantling

drones
kill list
tar sand pipeline
Arctic drilling
violation of 1st amendment
fracking
taxcut for the rich?

This commentary is written by the
biggest Obama supporter in the world in 2008, but not this time, we need a totally new system with no money in
politics.

And who ever is going to pour
water out of their ears in the next days
of convention speeches, please don´t use
the phrase "American Dream".
In it´s essence it means that if YOU are
greedy and ruthless enough, you can also start as a newspaperboy and end up a billionaire in Las Vegas with a pink mansion, a pink Cadillac and a hooker with big boobs.

As long as the gene of greed is more
dominant than the gene of compassion
America is going down the drains, whoever
wins.
 
 
+11 # juliajayne 2012-09-06 10:20
Electoral politics aren't everything. If everyday Americans wake up and start changing their own lives, changing their buying habits and refuse some of what popular culture, Wall Street and Madison Ave shove at us, we'll make a big impact without them.
 
 
+25 # Ellioth 2012-09-06 10:10
Like all humans, politicians are highly flawed - including Clinton and Obama. Reality - do you believe our nation and its future are in better hands with flawed Dems or flawed Repubs in 2012? It's not even close. The Repubs have been taken over by hateful narrow minded "Taliban-like" liars and thieves unlike "reasonable" Repubs of the recent past. There are virtually no moderates left in the GOP. Where's the courage of the few remaining moderates who ought to be speaking out for their country, telling the truth about the thugs that have taken over their party - what say you, Colin Powell, Bob Dole, Bob Packwood, Richard Lugar, and many others - have you lost your courage or love of country? Speak up, get rid of these fools and let's build a "race to the top" instead of a race to the bottom society. Imagine 2, 3 political parties vying to create a truly great nation that can play a leading role in creating the thriving global community!
 
 
+14 # mjc 2012-09-06 10:22
I am happy to "like" this comment. Think the Republican Party you remember...as do I...has been reduced in size by the Teas, whose "party" affiliations date back to the "know nothings" of the 19th Century.
 
 
+5 # kurt.cagle@gmail.com 2012-09-07 13:53
The Democratic Party of today would be recognizable as the Republican Party of 1957. In many respects, Obama reminds me a lot more of Eisenhower than he does of any Democrat since. That the Republican party of today sees that stance as being indistinguishab le from Socialism says far more about the current Republican party than it does about Obama, none of it good.
 
 
+10 # racewalker 2012-09-06 10:16
I thought that President Clinton gave a great speech and stressed the importance of this election. The fate of the middle class,the poor,women,envi ronment all hang in the balance. Unfortunately our democracy has been so corrupted by money that most elections are bought rather than earned! Obama will win the battle of ideas but Romney will win the election because of wealth! Americans have lost faith in their government and have become more apathetic. 93% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most.

Until citizens begin to unite in common cause as was the case in the Progressive era and see the moral imperative for action no political rhetoric-even a speech as great as Clinton's will not matter if it is not accompanied by action. I would urge my fellow Americans to not sit this election out! Knock on doors,register voters,get out and vote.

Let's begin to take our democracy back from the few. It has been done before and we must do it again!
 
 
+14 # ALinSTL 2012-09-06 10:21
AS A MORMON BISHOP WHO EXACTLY DOES ROMNEY ANSWER TO IN SALT LAKE CITY & WHAT ORDERS WILL THEY GIVE HIM IF HE BECOMES PRESIDENT???? PEOPLE ALWAYS WERE AFRAID KENNEDY WAS GOING TO BE TAKING ORDERS FROM THE POPE...SHOULDN' T WE BE AFRAID OF WHO'S RELIGIOUS PUPPET ROMNEY IS GOING TO BE?!?!?!?
 
 
0 # humanmancalvin 2012-09-06 10:26
Loving & embracing the Republican whiners today.."but Slick Willy & Monica, whine, pout, sob. Bill told the truth last night, something the GOP has not been able to do. Yea I know, "Don't play the Blame Game", not meaning us of course. So sick of the hypocrites, back to the 50's party'o'whitey.
 
 
+18 # ALinSTL 2012-09-06 10:40
BONEHER SAID HE NEEDED THE BUSH TAX CUTS, WHAT, 2 YEARS AGO, SO "JOB CREATORS" COULD CREATE JOBS...WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS, JACK???? YOU & "BITCH" McCONNELL ARE THE "AMERICAN" AL-QUEDA, NOT DOING YOUR JOBS TO TAKE CARE OF AMERICANS,BUT JUST TRYING TO STOP THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO BETTER US ALL..YOUR EFFORTS SPEAK OF TREASON TO ALL AMERICANS...
 
 
+15 # ClarkMN 2012-09-06 10:42
I am not sure that Alex Castellanos is wrong. David Gergen, also of CNN, wrote today that President Clinton blew holes in the Romney/Ryan plan that you could "drive a Mack through".

Only the most delusional of commentators have panned this speech. Brit Hume even said it was a great speech. Seriously.
 
 
+20 # oldibtgdy 2012-09-06 10:53
We've all been sitting out here in the forest waiting for someone to shred the crazy people left over from the Republican reality TV show. A friend of mine has chided me for my thought that the R's aren't dumb. They're deep into a "plan", in which their "leaders" allow the truely uneducated christian right to flail around pursuing their perceived reality while the "leaders" quietly take what they want from the middle class. But the R's have made a number of really, really amusing errors showing just how out of touch with reality they are. Remember W's boys inviting Steven Colbert to MC the white house press dinner a few years ago because they thought he really was a right-wing ideologue? A truly great moment. Or dredging up a satirical joke from 1996 or so that proposed "self-deportati on" as a viable immigration policy. Or, even more recently, opening up the network portion of their convention with Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair, mocking the Republicans narrow and outdated view of his really thoughtful, recent work. The kindest thing that can be said about them is they have no sense of humor and are too self-absorbed to recognize when they've been made fools of. Former Pres. Clinton took care of that last night. NO ONE could miss the point that the R's are crazy people of no substance, off in a pasture howling at the moon. Nothing more. That anyone would vote for them is simply scary.
 
 
+2 # pernsey 2012-09-07 05:29
Whats left of the Repubs is the lunatic fringe, the die hard Fox news fact free crowd, and the prejudice. Thats the only people keeping R and R in the race. Anyone that is logical or has true facts wont be voting for the R's. If you have a heart, a conscience or any semblance of caring about your fellow human being, you will be voting dem.
 
 
+7 # Beakie 2012-09-06 10:55
Barkingcarpet and Seeuingoa touched a sensitive nerve in me. Thanks for bringing these things up.
 
 
-2 # Activista 2012-09-06 11:14
"smart" Clinton has "IQ challenged" Reagan gift - makes US fell good - like cocaine.
But reality is quite different - most of the Obama wars are conceived at Clinton's AIPAC ruled Clinton Foundation (www.kycbs.net/AIPAC.htm)
And economy? - Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.
USA is bankrupted by militarism - both economically and morally - this is reality. War/bombing against Iraq continued under Clinton - cheerleaders please educate yourself - search.
 
 
+5 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 11:23
Two months into his presidency, Obama summoned the titans of finance to the White House, where he told them, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks"
[snip]
...in April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin, after a two-year inquiry, issued a fat report detailing several transactions, including Goldman's Abacus deal, that Levin and his staff believed should be investigated by Justice as possible crimes.
[snip]
Meanwhile, Obama's political operation continued to ask Wall Street for campaign money. A curious pattern developed. A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html
 
 
-6 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 11:25
Preamble: A New Progressive Alliance

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
- George Santayana (1863-1952)

Perpetual war. Rampant unemployment and under-employmen t. Environmental degradation. Self-interested corporatists run amok.

The difficult times America now faces, though challenging, are hardly new.
[snip]

The New Progressive Alliance (NPA) will endorse only those candidates who publicly sign the Unified Progressive Platform, which combines the ideals of four present-day and two foundational Progressive organizations. Any candidate or elected official who fails to uphold these tenets will be just as publicly exposed as a fraud and will lose the Alliance's support.

This is politics as our nation's Founders envisioned it: The people telling their public servants what they expect, and the public servants doggedly fighting for the people's interests - not those of corporate benefactors.

New Progressive Alliance: UNIFIED PROGRESSIVE PLATFORM

-> http://newprogs.org/unified-progressive-platform-ratified
 
 
+4 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 11:27
The banks, the economy, America, and you, would be fine if rather than bailing out Wall Street over the subprime mortgage mess they created for themselves and everyone else, the administration and the fed had instead paid off every mortgage in the country - subprime or not - for less money (only about 12 trillion) than the 18-20 trillion they gave wall street as a reward for pillaging the economy.

This could even have been done with tax credits thus avoiding any outlay of money from the fed.

It would have restored the value behind the CDO mortgage backed securities that wall street got themselves into so much trouble with, and thus saved Wall Street while tremendously boosting the consumer driven economy, as the money would have gone directly to the mortgage holding banks while at the same time effectively doubling the amount of bailout money by lifting a enormous debt weight from all those homeowners who would then have had an equivalent amount of disposable funds to spend any way they chose.

.........

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned for the restoration of Glass-Steagall, and then put in place all the same people who'd destroyed it. He'd been made an insider.
...
It was the same pattern Obama followed in every department: Where he didn't leave Bush's people in charge he brought back Clinton's. Anything to be an insider.

-- http://antemedius.com/content/reminder-wall-streets-mercenaries-ride-donkeys
 
 
+3 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 11:28
In 2010, American voters foolishly aided and abetted the Republicans by giving them control of Congress.

We now enter a very dangerous period in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

If Obama is not re-elected, and people don't work towards returning workable majorities in the House and the Senate to the Democrats, then the country only continues its decline, and all will be lost.

It may be the end of a two century great social experiment unequaled in human history.

Returning the Democratic Party to the glory days of house and senate control that it had until Obama and the party were unable to convince enough people that their batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was the only way to go, is the only way to go. There is no other reasonable way to go.

There were huge socially progressive strides made towards thinking about gradually thinking about progressively moving forward by Obama and the Democratic Party during that time, and the only thing holding them back is that not enough people clapped loudly enough.


MORE:
Keep On Rockin' In The Free World: Give Obama and the Dems Some Credit For A Change
http://antemedius.com/content/keep-rockin-free-world-give-obama-and-dems-some-credit-change
 
 
-2 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 11:37
When a salesman tells you you should buy his product and the best reason he can give you is that the other guys product is crap, he may be right about the other guys product, but it also means that salesman hasn't got anything to sell you that's worth you buying from him.

One would hope that emulating republicans is not the best that Democrats and Obama supporters have to offer now....

......

It is not Obama's fault that even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are still unable to see through him.
[snip]
[In July 2011] At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week.

“We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that,” Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. “My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this,” Conyers said strongly.

http://antemedius.com/content/it-not-obamas-fault
 
 
+7 # David Starr 2012-09-06 12:11
It's encouraging that Romney/Ryan would bleed. To paraphrase the title of a Rolling Stones album: LET THEM BLEED. Then, poof, gone.
 
 
-3 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:25
Quoting David Starr:
It's encouraging that Romney/Ryan would bleed. To paraphrase the title of a Rolling Stones album: LET THEM BLEED. Then, poof, gone.


does that make the Obama/Rolling Stones analogy from the same album...you can't always get what you want?
 
 
+4 # David Starr 2012-09-07 10:16
For now, anyway, it's more true than otherwise. Not that we can always get we want, but we have to get what we need in the form of real, permanent change. It's inevitable.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-09-07 10:52
Hilarious (sarcasm). Now, just for the record, what is it that you want? Who will you be voting for in November, and why? It's not a trick question.
 
 
+13 # mkgd 2012-09-06 12:31
It is clear that we have only one choice: Obama. Whether we agree 100% is irrelevant. Romney and Ryan are dangerous. They have a proven record of choosing ideology over facts. People who have such a dissociation from reality are unfit for public office and really need serious psychiatric help. Fortunately for them, they can afford it. Unfortunately, the GOP is so far gone that they don't see that they need it. Unfortunately for us, many Americans don't see the problem. Start with "legitimate rape doesn't cause pregnancy" and just look at the GOP's delusional belief that screwing over the little guy is really for his or her own good and you get a clear picture of how dangerous Romney and Ryan are. We are in serious danger of having seriously mentally ill people running the country. We cannot afford to lose this election.
 
 
+1 # coberly 2012-09-06 13:29
there are reasons i can't vote for Obama... essentially i would be endorsing policies that i regard as criminal or stupid.

BUT Romney and Ryan have convinced me their election would be a disaster.. perhaps one that we could not recover from.

what i would suggest to the "progressives" here at least is that if they vote for Obama, they find a way to be a real force in the Democratic party in the future. this seems to me it would involve some hard work... not just feel-good emoting.

i am not optimistic. if RandR win, we may have the fight of our lives on our hands, and we will need to get along with Democrats... but we cant afford to be taken for granted by them in the future either.
 
 
+3 # brux 2012-09-06 13:59
Speech and message were great.

There has to be some way to make people understand or point out how Democratic politicians still have to in some way integrate with an imperfect and to large extent system run by the elite, and in some or many cases a hostile to the people elite.

for example bill clinton signed economic deregulation after making a deal with alan greenspan that he would keep interest rates low to foster economic growth ... that got out of hand.

with this situation it is impossible for the people to do anything about politics because we never know or can react to what is going on now, it is always 8 year later we find out.

the significance of dropping glass-steagal and other things was lost on most of the public - until recently.

our politicians and the media are not doing their jobs, because if and when they are private and keep things from us it make them richer, stronger and more powerful.

the founders had checks and balances for a lot of things, but really nothing for this .... maybe we need something now.
 
 
-4 # Antemedius 2012-09-06 14:27
A vote is a terrible thing to waste, they say. But exactly when are votes wasted? Are they thrown away when cast for the least of multiple evils. Are they squandered when cast for what people really need and want, even if that means a Democrat might not win? Are they lost when people with few or no good choices stay home? Or have voters already been robbed when the menu is limited to corporate-funde d Republicans vs. corporate-funde d Democrats?

[snip]

This is what Eugene Debs referred to a century ago, when he declared he would rather cast a meaningful vote for what did want, and not get it, than a fake and hollow one for what he didn't want, and get that.

And so, a hundred years later, the game is still the game. If we want our votes to have any meaning, it's time to reject the fake choices between the two corporate parties. It's time to wise up, to grow up and like adults, to take a view longer than dessert, or the next two or three elections

How To Waste Your Vote In 2012
by Bruce A. Dixon,
Managing Editor, Black Agenda Report, 01/18/2012

-- http://blackagendareport.com/content/how-waste-your-vote-2012
 
 
+3 # gem01 2012-09-06 15:15
Antemedius, David Starr (and your relationship to Ken is???)and barkingcarpet: how easy it is to sit 'on high' and judge the poor mortals who are down in the muck trying to do something positive. Most of us got over this behavior in our 20's...I suspect you are all well over 30 and still keeping your hands clean while condemning those of us
who are showing up for life.
 
 
+3 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-06 21:38
Look around my friend, and you tell me, nice and rosy looking eh? Most of us got over what in our 20's, knowing the difference between right and far less right? Being realistic? What? For most folks, showing up for life appears to be being overly entitled and mindless consumers focused on the reality of money, and reducing a finite planet into personal products and entertainment opportunities. In short getting as much as we can, for as little, with little regard for anybody or anything else. Too bad nature is finite and has real laws.

What is more positive than trying to consume as little as possible, or to leave a living/sustaina ble planet behind for future life?
What we have now IS insane, and serves few and little. Vain glory and battling beliefs along with more import being given to image than to substance or truth are the norm, and appear to be of more value than love, kindness, or ethical behavior. Just look at the mess we are leaving in our wake, and take a look in your own weekly trash can of what you consume, and the pile of lifeless goo remaining. This IS our lovely system, and it is a failure. We are terrible stewards, and it IS up to us. We are choosing, through our ignorance, apathy, and knee jerk actions. It is always easier to sit back, and wait for someone else to offer an easy fix, or to sweep the mess behind some other country.....
Oops. We seem to have a big mess to clean up, and it's gonna take a LOT of love, and forgiveness
 
 
0 # pernsey 2012-09-07 05:33
Do you think Mitt is going to clean up any messes? If you do your deluded.
 
 
+5 # 4yourinformation 2012-09-06 16:18
Very good speech, but don't forget who worked with Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers et al to remove Glass-Steagall and shut down Brookslee Born when she tried to stop all of the crimes of Wall Street.
 
 
0 # frederico 2012-09-06 17:31
WAKE UP, wine and cheese liberals, alleged progressives, other Obama apologists and the American Idle! A couple of days before Slick Willie made that speech, Obama missed his targeted assassination victims for that day, and MURDERED another 13 innocent men, women and children in Yemen. If you vote for either one of these corporate stooges, you are a war criminal, a fool and a hypocrite. America and the World deserves so much better. Summon up your courage and vote for Rocky, Jill or Roseanne. We MUST throw off THE SYSTEM, and establish an alternative to the rampant corruption, or we ALL go off the cliff together. We can have a revolution at the ballot box, without bloodshed. ObamaRomney will bring misery, starvation, fear, murder, slavery, endless war, more torture, global militarization, food poisoning, environmental destruction, etc., etc... Obama and Romney are "nice guys", but they are both evil, by word and deed. A strong alternative vote could be the beginning of our our salvation. Suck it up, or lose it.
 
 
+7 # popeye47 2012-09-06 19:58
I love this part of the speech the most:

Of the other Big Lie employed by the Romney-Ryan campaign, Clinton said, "When Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama's Medicare savings as 'the biggest, coldest power play,' I did not know whether to laugh or cry." He noted that the Ryan plan featured the same "cuts" - they aren't cuts in Medicare benefits - that Obama enacted and Romney called a "raid" on Medicare, and added, "it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."

Calling out Ryan for ONE of his many lies. I have to say one thing. Ryan can look you in the eye and lie to you without batting an eye. Damn those Republicans have gotten so good in that area.
 
 
-1 # Activista 2012-09-09 10:37
from Clinton - the guy who never lied? Hillarious!
 
 
+3 # Babbzy3 2012-09-07 06:00
Reading all this truly hurts my brain, but a few of you have zoned in on the real problem. The guy that said that as long as greed trumps compassion, we're doomed is spot on. Secondly, anyone involved in politics at the presidential level has to sell part of his soul in order to get elected in the first place and then to get anything accomplished. One needs to pick the lesser of two evils. Fitzgerald, the Republican fellow that held Obama's senate seat before Obama, was Republican but used his own wealth to finance his campaign and was not beholding to any special interests. He quit after one term in total disgust, as he could not maneuver his way through the political b.s. in Washington. So how can we change this? Concrete ideas on how to get the money out of politics. It's keeping me up at night.
 
 
-11 # spartacusjones 2012-09-07 07:45
Bill Clinton, the guy who brought you the Waco Massacre and set the stage for the "war on terror" hoax.
Anybody Clinton supports has GOT to be a wrong number.

sj
 
 
+2 # lark3650 2012-09-07 08:13
President Clinton is a master politician....a politician does what he can to get the people to do something for him....a statesman does everything he can to do something for the people...it was a great speech..but in the end..I hope there is a balance between the two....for our sake! DEEDS...NOT MERE WORDS.
 
 
-5 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:30
Quoting lark3650:
President Clinton is a master politician....a politician does what he can to get the people to do something for him....a statesman does everything he can to do something for the people...it was a great speech..but in the end..I hope there is a balance between the two....for our sake! DEEDS...NOT MERE WORDS.


And, what was it exactly that Clinton did "for the people". Its one thing to say we have to vote for Obama because the alternative is truly frightening. But that doesn't mean we have to delude ourselves as to who he is or what he has done (or not done) and the same goes for clinton who just on economic issues deregulated the financial industry and fueled the outsourcing of jobs through NAFTA and other free trade agreements and "created" mostly low-wage non-union jobs at home. So, correct me if i'm wrong here but what exactly did Clinton do "for the people" (certainly it wasn't for the people of Haiti given our role in overthrowing their democratically elected president)?
 
 
+1 # noitall 2012-09-09 15:02
I was beginning to think that no one participating in this election could put a sentence together. Clinton did what he does best, ties it up in a succinct bundle and splayed it for all to hear. We'll give him that and not dwell on all the issues that are conveniently ignored during this campaign. We still don't have a candidate that is representing the REAL issues that threaten this Republic. To our peril.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN