Clinton: Wow

[T-post Tom]

Amazing speech. Party wonks & haters can't deny the man's genius. Clinton might be the one man GOPs fear more than Grover Norquist when it comes to elections.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hoover

My comment about being attacked on September 11th is more about what it did to the country as a whole, not just the conflicts it may have led us getting involved in. Sept 11 caused a major economic slow down. In fact, similar to what happened in 2008.

Horseshit. The 2001 recession technically wasn't one, since there weren't 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Didn't see the speech, but I'm not surprised at the wet dream reactions of the Libs. Clinton is the best speaking president we've had since Reagan, it's no shock that he probably delivered and excellent speech. Full of shit as always, but a great speaker nonetheless. I give him props for that all the time.

I don't agree with your assessment of his politics, but this is my general point: regardless of whether someone does, they have to admit that he's a brilliant public speaker. So I'm with you there.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I personally would not argue that Bush was the worst of all time, but I'd probably have him in my bottom ten, maybe even bottom 5 if I were more familiar with Presidential history.

Well, Harding was as corrupt as the day is long, Andrew Johnson was a barely-literate punching bag of the bloodthirsty post-war northern Congress bent on revenge, Buchanan's inactions did more to hand us the Civil War than any other, and Pierce's son died gruesomely in front of him just before inauguration, so he crawled into a bottle and spent his entire administration there. I'm no fan of Bush, but due to these four, he'll never be worse than number five on the Awful Presidents list.

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Here's the real question -- if Bill Clinton had run in 2012 would he have won? I'm hard-pressed to think he wouldn't beat both of these guys.

He would have pulverized them both.

Originally Posted by WV

The scary part is that there are people on both sides that let these dog and pony shows dictate their vote.

There are. More to the point, though - and you hear this message come in both - there are people already in the tank for one side or the other who are inspired to go pound the pavement by what they see at the conventions. One of my friends is seriously considering running for office now after last night (and she could win, too). If one party doesn't show, their party will almost certainly lose, this year more than others.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hoover

If we want to scoreboard watch do we want to compare the unemployment rates in states that have Republican governors vs Democrat governors?

Clinton used a selective stat. For everything that Clinton claims as good as part of his administration, Newt Gingrich also took credit for.

52 years of national job growth is selective? GTFO.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Hey guyz, the intratubes are a serious place. What do you think this is, a sidebar forum on a football site?

Yes, and all properly footnoted, please. Chicago style, of course.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by vailpass

A second term for obama means 4 more years of gridlock. He is unable to work with anyone and nobody will work with him. It isn't spoken but he is reviled. Right or wrong it is a fact, as such he needs to be replaced.

That is something that makes my head hurt. Which is worse, Gridlock with Obama or Mitt with a more cooperative congress doing their best to help us?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Yes, and all properly footnoted, please. Chicago style, of course.

Yes, of course.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

That is something that makes my head hurt. Which is worse, Gridlock with Obama or Mitt with a more cooperative congress doing their best to help us?

I am not aware of a president that was more widely disliked and disrespected by the opposing party than obama. It is possible that both House and Senate will be R and they will do everything in their power to shut obama down. It has already been shown obama is incapable of building a consensus. If the only criteria is what's best for the country then obama must go.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

He addressed both points, for what it's worth. At least in a way.

1. He took the unemployment rate head on. He address the fact that 1/3 of unemployment is a result of a mismatch in the talents of available workers and available jobs. A trend that should right itself in a couple years.

Why didn't we have this terrible issue prior to 9/2008? Anyway, I guess Obama's people were way off when they said the stimulus that wasn't as shovel ready as Obama thought would keep unemployment under 8.0%.

2. Didn't really take the debt question head on under Obama's watch.

He did expose the Romney/Ryan campaign as frauds on the issue, however. Their suggested budget takes the current deficit we have now and further explodes it.

His speech was pretty ****ing detailed.

Not as fast as Obama's does.

But nice to know that Clinton can make a good case for getting Obama re-elected so we can have four more years like the last four years.

[RINGLEADER]

But thanks for the recap Direckshun!

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Here's the real question -- if Bill Clinton had run in 2012 would he have won? I'm hard-pressed to think he wouldn't beat both of these guys.

Yes.

And I would have voted for him.

There was a time when I wouldn't believe that I could say that, but I think Clinton is much more moderate then he is liberal, much more pragmatic than ideological. This is based upon his past thinking and governing style, which is about 180-degrees from the way Obama thinks and governs.

The economy is not going to grow until you make it acceptable to the capital markets to invest into the market. At all levels. Nothing Obama is suggesting is going to point us in that direction. Taxing capital is not a smart thing to consider right now and, given where the debt situation is, the flexibility to spend into the economic hole is becoming limited.

The next step for the politicians (and I'm not suggesting this is the exclusive territory of the Dems) is to start doing things to artificially force capital into the markets. And when that happens, it's all over.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

That is something that makes my head hurt. Which is worse, Gridlock with Obama or Mitt with a more cooperative congress doing their best to help us?

Our government will be in perpetual gridlock until one of the parties have: a) a majority in the House, b) 60 votes in the Senate, and c) the White House.

Without those 60 votes to prevent a filibuster, even a R majority Senate will meet with gridlock under Romney.

The Republicans cast that die this past term; they're going to have to live with it.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

The Republicans cast that die this past term; they're going to have to live with it.

Looked a lot more to me like blow back from the prior term. “Cast that die”.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Clinton has always been a polished speaker and he presented well last night.

The problem I have is that he wasn't completely honest and failed to recall some pretty serious issues. Maybe he forgot, but I didn't, that during his term, his policies led to a big market crash that GUTTED all of the investments I made my first 5 years out of college. The economy crashed hard at the end of his term.

The dems held him up as a beacon of women's rights, when all I could wonder was if the snarky young gal known of requiring $50/month condom budget in a nearly blue dress was in front of him, if he'd be trying to give her a baby to abort. While Fluke droned on angrily about treatment of women by Romney, isn't it a little ironic to tote Clinton out to applause afterwards?

Clinton can harp on military budgets and spending, but his cuts to the military are partially why it was in somewhat sorry shape when we needed it.

He spent last night licking Obama's tummy during his speech, but 4 years ago, he and his loving bride very publicly had different opinions.

How the **** is Clinton responsible the tech bubble and it's burst?

[AndChiefs]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

52 years of national job growth is selective? GTFO.

Ehh I don't take much stock in it either. If all the job losses in Obama's administration were "Bush's fault" how many of the gains were also republicans fault? And vice versa.

It's a great talking point but impossible to prove one way or the other.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Clinton caused the internet bubble to burst? Or didn't put armor on Humvees?

GTFO.

Glad i wasn't the only one who noticed that