Why Bill Clinton Should Be Giving the Keynote Address at the RNC Convention

If Clinton actually used his perspective, he'd be giving a rousing convention speech on the benefits of free trade and free markets.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to deliver a prime-time address at the Democratic National Convention. No doubt, he's going to give one hell of a talk. The man is on his game, enjoying the highest favorable ratings he's seen since 1993; a robust 66 percent of Americans think highly of the former president.

It's a politically astute choice by Barack Obama, as "there isn't anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective on not just the last four years, but the last two decades, than Bill Clinton," David Axelrod explained to The New York Times. "He can really articulate the choice that is before people."

He sure can. Or, rather, he sure could, if he felt like it. Problem is that if Clinton actually used his perspective, he'd be giving a rousing convention speech on the benefits of free trade and free markets at the Republican convention. After all, if the man from Hope has taught America one thing, it's that even a power-abusing letch can be great for prosperity if he just leaves the economy alone.

It's likely that Clinton never really believed that the era of big government was actually over -- or going to be over -- or that it should have been over, but it is nearly inconceivable to imagine him telling voters that government was the primary source of progress and prosperity or arguing that the central reason for entrepreneurial success is not smarts or hard work or even luck but rather the yeoman's work of bureaucrats who cobble together much-needed wind farms and such.

Clinton doesn't seem to have much against profit-mongering, either. He's the kind of guy who could praise someone who worked in the private equity business as having a sterling business career, a career that could cross the qualification threshold to be president even. Under his presidency, inequality increased to the highest rate of any industrialized country. Then again, the entire nation grew richer, as well, which is, as Clinton probably knows, what really matters.

Clinton will tell us how he, like President Obama, had to face down a newly invigorated conservative Congress -- and did it to his political advantage. What he won't tell us is how he recalibrated his goals when it happened and, rather than allow the economy and his presidency to sink under the weight of stubborn ideology, gave in to a rare bipartisan achievement, welfare reform. I doubt he'll have the time to talk about it, considering Obama has now gutted this reform into oblivion.

Perhaps Clinton will remind us of a time when the president was a champion of global growth policies, an era in which we saw the expansion of scary things such as "outsourcing," offshoring and globalism and, not coincidentally, in which the economy boomed and expanded by 50 percent in real terms. Considering our president's penchant for isolationist and populism tropes, it's doubtful.

The former president will, no doubt, also point out that the Republican Party has gone all loco on America. But his presence will remind some voters that Democrats have gone an equal degree, if not further, to the left. Put it this way: Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren, whose overt socialistic rhetoric would have made her candidacy a non-starter 20 years ago (maybe even five years ago), is likely to be the big man's opening act.

You can romanticize Clinton because he supported higher tax rates all you want, but mostly he did what he did by doing little.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    The schadenfreude of watching liberals endure Bubba going to the dark side would be epic.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a tepidly "limited govt" position by the 1994 elections. He was a rank socialist in 1993-94, nearly as bad as BO.

    It also helps to be walking into office after the collapse of the USSR and the dawn of the commercial Internet.

  • ||

    Not exactly a rank socialist. He did win the election by 'stealing the center'.

    It's true that the '94 elections were what forced him to actually move to the center, didn't he actually welfare reform twice before signing it and taking credit for it? But a rank socialist wouldn't have ever even talked about endorsing welfare reform as Clinton did during his campaign. And I don't remember Clinton doing much of the class warrior stuff that Hopey McChange is so fond of.

  • ||

    Clinton was not a rank socialist at all, he was the candidate of the Democratic Leadership Council.

    The position of the DLC was basically that the goals of the welfare state could never be accomplished without the wealth a prosperous private sector economy. This meant that thye rejected anti-business populism and were techinically prepared to delay the implementation of new welfare programs until the budgent was balanced and funding could be projected to be available for them in the future.

  • ||

    So, yes, you're right, Clinton didn't do much of the class warrior stuff BO is doing now. Except for the token top bracket tax increase right after he was elected, there was very little that he succeeded at getting through that could be argued as being leftwing.

    As for his Healthcare initiative, it needs to be remembered that getting other people to pay one's medical bills is a very popular concept. The fact that it failed is partly due to the fact that no one could figure out how to, or even pretend how to, make it work.

  • Mo||

    Token top bracket increase? The Clinton tax increase was the second largest in real dollars in history and the third largest ever as a percent of GDP.

  • Killazontherun||

    '93 was a disastrous year for his incoming administration, as I do recall, one thing after another going haywire. Obama level, in fact.

    Given the appointments he made, esp. at Justice, but notable elsewhere, his 93-94 administration was to the left of Clinton himself. This was likely the result of two factors, having to appease Washington DC establishment types and having to appease his wife. The '94 election liberated him from the former with their diminished power, and from the later since he could legitimately blame the loss on her.

  • ||

    He did win the election by 'stealing the center'.

    No he won the election by Perot 'stealing' votes from Bush.

    Though I would not call it stealing...I think Perot earned em fair and square.

  • Jesse James Dean||

    actually this is a myth that partisan hacks in the GOP still propagate. Exit polls show that perot took about an equal number of votes from both bush and clinton

  • ||

    actually this is a myth that partisan hacks in the GOP still propagate.

    1988

    George H. W. Bush 53.4%

    Michael Dukakis 45.7%

    1992

    Bill Clinton 43.0%

    George H. W. Bush 37.5%

    Ross Perot 18.9%

    Math proves you wrong.

  • ||

  • ||

    Lastly in 1988 I voted for Clinton. Please refrain from implying I'm a partisan hack.

  • ||

    1992 =P

  • DRM||

    Yeah, Democrat hacks like to keep pointing at the exit poll numbers like they actually mean anything isolated from the rest of the campaign.

    Prior to Perot joining the race, the polling was Bush #1, Democrat/Clinton #2. From Perot joining, it was Bush #1, Perot #2, Clinton #3, Perot taking a significant majority of his support from Bush supporters. When Perot quit, it was Clinton #1, Bush #2, Perot (if included in the polls) #3, which didn't change after he re-joined the race.

    The key event of the campaign was Perot dropping out of the race during the Democratic convention, making a statement that (indirectly) endorsed Clinton. The day before Perot quit, Clinton was #3 in the polls, as he had been for months. The day after Perot quit, Clinton was #1, and remained so for the whole rest of the campaign. Perot won Bush supporters and converted them into Clinton supporters.

  • ||

    Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a tepidly "limited govt" position by the 1994 elections. He was a rank socialist in 1993-94, nearly as bad as BO.

    Maybe.

    But I think you are underestimating how far the democrats has slipped into the left wing fairyland since 2000.

    The fact that Clinton could be moved, kicking and screaming or not, is proof positive.

  • bc15||

    Exactly. Obama could have also moved to the center after the 2010 elections, or even after the 2010 Special Election of Scott Brown. But, he didn't. That's the difference between the Clintoncrats and the Obamacrats.

  • ||

    Also there is very little evidence that Clinton was a Keynesian.

    The "era of big government is over" line can be attributed to republican pressure.

    The "creative destruction" line was all him.

    Clinton was much closer to JFK supply side economic policy then Obama is.

  • deedeemao||

    This article was featured on the excellent RealClearPolitics website under the title, "Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist"

    In regards to that point, some clarification is needed. Rather than, "Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist",the fact of the matter is that COMPARED to Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist.

    Bill Clinton is really only a centrist if the center is now on the Left of the spectrum as is usually how "centrism" is described these days when only Liberal Republicans are considered centrists and even Obama has been called a centrist by many in the press.

    Clinton was a Leftist but a pragmatist. Obama is so ideologically rigid as to almost be a fanatic. Yet his take-no-prisoners tactics and disregard for the rule of law have afforded him great power to push this country to the far Left, to the point where "capitalist" has become a disparaging epithet.

    I'm old enough to remember a time when there was no such expression as "Liberal Republican" because it would have been a contradiction in terms. Instead, the first Liberal Republicans were called "Rockefeller Republicans" But they were not considered moderates,or centrists, they were considered anomalies.

    The last Democrat Moderate or centrist was Zell Miller and now the few Democrat moderates remaining will nonetheless vote with the extremists when it comes to something like Obamacare with not a single "Centrist' abstaining.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He should send the 1994 Congressional Republicans a nice basket every Christmas. Because that's why he lurched to the right and stopped trying to be as much as a hardcore statist.

    He was a pretty bad president by most libertarian measures, and, of course, was personally and probably politically corrupt. But people associate the times with their presidents, as dumb as that may be.

  • John||

    At a deep level, Clinton understood that without a decent economy and free trade, there was no money for liberals to do all the great things liberals always think they can do. Obama not so much.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Yeah, Clinton actually had to figure out the system/economy in order to figure out how to gain the most from corruption. He didn't have the luxury of just being handed positions and gobs of money.

    He had to get them the old fashioned way: subterfuge, murder and extortion.

  • The Hammer||

    Murder?

  • Killazontherun||

    Foster and Dellums and they both had it coming ;)

  • ||

    The Clinton years were the best time for conspiracy theories. I, personally, was always a fan of the one that claimed he was running drugs out of some podunk Arkansas airport.

  • John||

    And killed those guys in Medina just to watch them die. And had Hillary do the same thing with Vince Foster.

  • ||

    I forget, why did they kill Vince Foster? I forget what that was supposed to cover up. And what about that, what was he, Interior guy, Brown or whatever his name was?

  • John||

    He knew about Hillary causing the SL crisis while at the Rose Law Firm. They killed him in the White House and dumped his body at Fort Macy Park.

    I miss 1990s crazy.

  • ||

    It was a simpler, more innocent time, when all we had to worry about was the black helicopters and being burned alive by the ATF.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Ron Brown? They had to have an entire mountain re-aligned in Germany to get that one to work.

  • Drake||

    "He's an easy man to track, he leaves dead bodies everywhere he goes"

  • ||

    "Ain't no end to doin' right."

  • Marshall Gill||

    It was Ron Brown, Warty. He died in a plane crash and then it was claimed that there were bullet holes in his skull or something.

    Yep, the 1990's had a special type of conspiracy crazy.

  • The Hammer||

    Which of course was a massive conspiracy to discredit anyone who questioned the official stories on Ruby Ridge and Waco.

  • ||

    Also you had Clinton White house staff keeping FBI records of Republican politicians at the white house.

    The conspiracies had to be severe in order to cover up the shit that was actually happening.

    It isn't murder or black helicopters but Clinton getting special Whitewater real estate deals for political favors as Governor is good ol' fashioned corruption.

  • DRM||

    Vince Foster was the guy who handled a bunch of Whitewater legal docs for the Clintons.

    The non-Clintons in the best position to testify about the Clintons' involvement in the whole complex of things that got called "Whitewater" were Vincent Foster, James McDougal, Susan McDougal, and Webster Hubbell.

    The theory is: Hubbell could be kept quiet by bribes (first a senior DOJ job, later big-money/no-work contracts). Susan McDougal was loyal to the Clintons (she went to jail later for refusing to answer any questions, despite grants of immunity). James McDougal's testimony was discredited in advance by his fraud convictions. That left Vince Foster as the one who could take down the Clintons, so they had him killed.

    If the evidence hadn't been so unambiguously suicide, well.

    Hubbell's money, incidentally, is how the Lewinsky dress mess wound up under the Whitewater investigation. Vernon Jordan arranged one of the big-money/no-work contract for Hubbell and a job for Monica Lewinsky at Revlon. The theory was that both were hush money for the Clintons, and Lewinsky's testimony might let the investigation force Jordan to cut a deal where he gave up the Clintons over Whitewater matter.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The strangest thing about the whole drug running through the podunk airport is that even if true, Clinton was only governor at the time and the (conspiracy) theory was that it was the Reagan administration running drugs to support Iran/Contra. I can't ever understand how this could be negative for the Dems but not the Repubs.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Didn't the CIA actually run drugs to get money for Iran / Contra? I thought that came out at the trial of Freeway Rick Ross.

    I don't think there was a mention of an Arkansas connection, since he was in South Central LA, though.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, that podunk airport in Arkansas was in the left literature years before the Clinton campaign. I remember thinking, 'this again?' when I saw it in the American Spectator in '93.

  • Killazontherun||

    Funny enough, but the CIA drug running out of Arkansas for a vast Central American fascist empire rumor was started by the left in the late '80s. I remember reading about it in the Rolling Stone. The left then was absolutely nuts over Central America. Absolutely nuts. Off the fucking charts.

  • The Derider||

    Clinton tax rates were 5% higher than current rates.

    If "leaving the economy alone" means raising taxes by 5%, I think Obama should leave the economy alone, too.

  • ||

    JOE-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

  • John||

    That is totally Joe.

  • ||

    I can't believe it took us so long to realize it. He's been looming under this name for, what, two years?

  • John||

    I know. He got careless. He wasn't quite his noxious self when he first started. Took a while for it to come out.

  • ||

    He was totally obnoxious from the get-go, though. Remember the whole PWND thing with him? That was pure joe.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Had to wait for the new detection scripts to fit the sublayer for the new site.

    Does your alarm sound like the most annoying noise ever from Dumb AND Dumber or is that just mine?

  • ||

    It sounds something like this.

    We really need to joeproof this place.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    That cat thing is awesome. If I had that last year, I would still have the Excel file that matched every Autobot and Decepticon to their analogous Iron Maiden song.

  • ||

    Remember the whole PWND thing with him? That was pure joe.

    Wait derider was saying "PWND" 2 years ago and we guys did not suspect him being joe?

    We do suck at this.

  • ||

    I love how joe is now in this little dark hole of self loathing.

    He has been caught red handed spoofing and yet his belligerent ego prevents him from admitting it.

    I can imagine the strategies going on in his head:

    "Should I post as joe and claim I am not Derider...but as joe how would I know poeple were claiming derider was me?"

    Brilliant.

    joe the best course is to admit it and start posting as yourself. yes we will make fun and jeer...so what? We are a bunch of libertarians who you disagree with anyway.

    Also if I can admit I was a fucking idiot and dead wrong for supporting the Iraq war I think what you have to do is only baby steps.

    Time to come out of the closet Boyle.

  • ||

    Not only style but subject matter. This was one of joe's favorite subjects back in the day.

    Next he will be telling us how small the increase is, and how close we libertarians are with him. "What is 32% compared to 37%?"

  • alex griggs||

    Joe, you little turd, we know it's you. The unncessary comma between "alone" and "too" seals it for me. That's a Joe from Lowell-ism.

  • John||

    So Joe, you still out doing God's work in America's toughest neighborhoods with ACORN? Help any under age pimps get financing recently? Still waiting for the Democratic Congress to cut off funding to the War on Terror?

    Inquiring minds want to know you coward.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're voting for an all-GOP Congress? And Romney, who is a heck of a lot closer to Clinton than Obama?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Clinton tax rates were 5% higher than current rates.

    And annual spending was $2 trillion lower than current rates.

    If "leaving the economy alone" means spending $2 trillion a year less, I think Obama should leave the economy alone, too.

    /LAWGIC TRAP

  • John||

    Clinton tax rates in return for a $2 trillion cut in spending? I am up for that deal.

  • daveInAustin||

    There are no tax cuts, only spending cuts. It doesn't matter if government goes into your wallet and uses your debit card or your credit card, it's still taxing you. This is why I can't stand people complaining about Obama when they said nothing about Bush and even act like he was some sort of conservative. He and the Republican congress spent trillions on wars, put back corporate welfare for "farmers" and expanded the biggest welfare program we have (Medicare) to buy Florida. And to top it off, he collaborated with the Democrats to give trillions of tax dollars to Fannie/Freddie/GS.
    The best government we had in the past 50 years was the Clinton/Gingrich era.

  • JW||

    What? And return to the barbaric 90's? Maybe you enjoy the taste of human flesh after the riots and famines, but I say no thank you.

    The budgeting process isn't a suicide pact!

  • ||

    And return to the barbaric 90's?

    We are at Clinton Era rates of CO2 emissions when gas was under a dollar a gallon.

    Children were also hunted down in the streets for their blood, and hipsters could get jobs.

    Dark days indeed.

  • Drake||

    I propose we adopt inflation indexed Clinton era tax-brackets and spending.

  • ||

    Spending (as a percentage of GDP) was also far lower under Clinton.

    It would be nice if Obama would leave the economy alone like that as well.

    Oh, but I forget it was solely the "Bush" tax cuts that led to our economic woes.

  • ||

    Hey Joe, how salty is your Messiah's cum?

  • The Hammer||

    Fine, raise taxes by 5% across the board, including the current 0% paid by half of the population currently, and in exchange, we return spending to 1999 levels and eliminate all government agencies created since then. Deal?

  • Brutus||

    I'd totally exchange FY2000 tax rates for FY2000 spending levels (I'd even throw in inflation and population increases).

    I can't seem to get any port-siders to bite on that. Wonder why.

  • ||

    Clinton tax rates were 5% higher than current rates.

    Obama's tax increase for the rich would only generate 70 billion a year joe.

    How do you propose to pay for the other 1200 billion of our annual deficit?

    Oh yeah let us not forget that when the Bush tax cuts went into effect tax revenues jumped.

    You only want to raise taxes to make the rich less rich. ie wealth redistribution. As a revenue generator it is a dead end.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Five percent won't even come close to solving our problems, Derprider.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Is an RNC convention like an ATM machine? Or a VIN number?

  • Scotticus Finch||

    I fail. Republican National "Committee", right?

  • Brett L||

    Speaking of conspiracy theories... Its pretty brave of Obama to trust Clinton by giving him an open mike. Once Billy Jeff gets to propping himself, there's no telling how much damage he might do to Obama to make himself look even better.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He won't. Clinton is going to show how awesome he believes he is by saving Obama's ass.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I wouldn't underestimate Clinton's vindictiveness. I think he's still not over the race card being played on Hillary in 2008.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Uh, you might want to think that one through a little bit.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Yeah, I agree with Camping. Clinton is still wildly popular within Dem circles, maybe more so than Obama. I could definitely see him delivering a speech that is one big complisult.

    Obama will have to sit there like a stooge and take it. Could be fun TV watching.

  • WTF||

    My thought as well. I wouldn't put it past old Bill to take the opportunity to slip the knife in.

  • SIV||

    Clinton, like any master politician, just wants to be liked. I expect he'll fire up the Dem base, wet the panties of the legacy media and winkingly undermine Obama's reelection chances all at the same time. He's that damn good.

  • Drake||

    Funny that Obama thinks either Clinton wants to see him re-elected.

  • Bam!||

    +1

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The brothaz always stick together. You know that.

  • Brett L||

    Believing Bill is in it for anyone but Bill would be a terrible mistake.

  • Tim||

    Exactly, Clinton is the kind of guy who'll fuck you in the ass and then use your curtains to wipe himself off.

  • NoVAHockey||

    The key with Clinton, though, is that he'd make you feel good about what just happened.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Will Clinton be talking about how we once executed a functionally retarded guy just to prove that he was tough on crime?

    No?

    Will there be any mention of him sitting on his hands and breathing through his nose while the people of Rwanda were hacked to pieces with machetes?

    When a few words from the bully pulpit in support of the UN might have saved them?

    No?

  • ||

    LEAVE BRITNEY THE ECONOMY ALONE!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This just in: Harry Reid is still crazy.

    Reid has said he learned about Romney’s taxes earlier this summer from an investor in Bain Capital who, he said, called his office to pass along the information. The senator has refused to identify the investor and has acknowledged that he can’t be certain about the veracity of the charges he’s been spreading.

    In a conference call with Nevada reporters on Wednesday, he broadened what he said were his sources for the contention that Romney was able to avoid federal taxes.

    “I have had a number of people tell me that,” said Reid, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal , while refusing to elaborate. “I don't think the burden should be on me,” Reid told home-state reporters. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”

    "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee!"

    Also

    Fucking presumption of innocence- how does it work?

  • The Hammer||

    He's not putting him on trial for it.

  • GW||

    Romney avoided taxes? Shit, if this is true, he's eligible for an Obama cabinet post!

    Win-win!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "He's the one I've alleged has sexual intercourse with barnyard animals. It's up to him to prove that's not true."

  • Rasilio||

    Um, there are a couple of problems with this.

    First when Clinton was first elected he really tried to be the socialist innovator that BO has tried to be, right down to the health care reform attempt. Then he got his ass handed to him in the mid term. The major difference after that was Clinton is far more self serving than BO and so he learned his lesson.

    Second, there is nothing that Clinton did to create that economy, it wasn't even his hands off approach. The major reason the economy was so good during Clinton's last 6 years is we were going through the inflation of an asset bubble caused by the Fed slashing interest rates by more than half and never returning them to the long term average. True it probably would have been a fairly robust economy either way thanks to the growth in productivity brought on by the newly emerging computer technology at the time however that is not enough to even come close to explaining how GDP growth went from an average of 300 Billion a year under Reagan and Bush to 528 billion a year in Clinton's 2nd term or why it fell back to the $350 billion a year range in Bush Jr's first 3 years before the Housing Bubble began to explode in 2004.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    This is pretty awesome - and I basically agree. I always despised Clinton as a person and President due to him being a...typical politico. However, I did have to note that I couldn't bitch much about domestic policy, given his leadership with congress to improve welfare, among other things.

    Foreign policy - terrible. Morals? None. Domestic - solid "B" in my book.

    I never thought I'd say I missed him, but 12 years of GW and Bush III make me miss him...

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'll give Clinton credit for not screwing up Nafta and Gatt.

    He may not have made them happen, but he could have screwed them up--but didn't.

    Incidentally, he supported Nafta and Gatt over the objections of the unions, which is something Obama would never do in a million years.

    Clinton deserves credit for that. Crossing the unions in support of free trade isn't something that Democrats do by accident.

    Obama hasn't done anything good for the economy yet. The free trade agreements Obama has been a part of--were rejected and renegotiated and were not submitted for approval until the unions signed off on them.

    That's a big difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton overrode the unions on free trade, where Obama let the unions hold our free trade agreements hostage. Obama couldn't care less if our lack of a trade agreement hurt the rest of the economy--so long as it didn't hurt the unions.

  • The Derider||

    If Obama let unions hold the trade bills hostage, why did they all pass?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't take my word for it!

    The deal was signed in 2007, but didn't come up for a vote until Bush was out of office.

    Then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama opposed the KORUS FTA as `badly flawed' during his campaign, claiming it wouldn't do enough to increase U.S. auto sales. His criticism echoed the auto labor unions.[21] Presidential Candidate and then-Senator Obama said he would vote against the FTA if it came to the floor of the U.S. Senate. He also stated he would send it back to Korea if elected president.

    ...

    Later, under "December 2010 Agreement":

    The December 2010 deal represented a compromise between the two sides. Significant concessions were granted to the U.S. on trade in automobiles: tariff reductions for Korean automobiles were delayed for five years, and U.S. autos were granted broader access to the Korean market. At the same time, the negotiators agreed to set aside disagreements over U.S. beef exports for the time being. The deal was supported by Ford Motor Company, as well as the United Auto Workers, both of which had previously opposed the agreement. Remarking on the UAW's support, an Obama administration official was quoted as saying, "It has been a long time since a union supported a trade agreement" and thus the administration hopes for a "big, broad bipartisan vote" in the U.S. Congress in 2011.[12]

    http://tinyurl.com/cccrb43

  • Ken Shultz||

    In all serious, Derider, it seems sometimes like your grasp of the facts is predicated on your personal opinions.

    I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, myself, but I've been persuaded by facts before, and I'll be persuaded by facts again!

    The fact is that Barack Obama renegotiated a trade deal--that had already been signed by South Korea--just to make it okay with the UAW.

    Whatever your opinions of that are? They should probably shift to include those facts. Right?

  • ||

    Hey joe you disappeared from the sub thread above. Whahappen?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is that joe?

    Is that really joe?!

    I miss joe.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Yes, Ken. The Derprider is none other than our wonderful Joe from Lowell.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Also, I read somewhere else on the interwebs that Liz Warren will be Bill Clinton's opening act.

    I guess that's the sequence they want--evil, joker, evil.

    Clinton may have done some evil stuff, but he wasn't obsessed with it. And I get the sense from other people, who were in Clinton's White House, that Clinton was capable of being ashamed of the evil things he did.

    That's another difference between Clinton, on one hand, and Warren and Obama on the other; Clinton is embarrassed of the stupid things they did, but Warren and Obama are proud of the evil things they've done.

    1) Lie-awatha: Evil speech
    2) Bubba: Remember the good ol' days? We're not so evil!
    3) Barry O: Evil wrapped up in flag waving

    Gotta break up all that evil with somethin'! And it can't be Hillary in there. It might remind people that she might have made a better president than Obama, and you can't have people thinking that there might be someone out there better than Obama.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Clinton and the rest of the Democrats continually try to credit Clinton with an economic boom and a budget "surplus"

    The economic expansion started before he ever took office and ended before he left office. He had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with creating it or sustaining it.

    And the budget picture was improved by increased tax revenue created by that very same economic expansion that he had nothing to do with.

  • Killazontherun||

    David Maraniss has an opinion piece in the WashPo asking 'What drives the Obama doubters and haters?'

    Just me, or is that odd phrasing? Try it with any other politician. What drives the Bush doubters? What drives the Clinton doubters? Why would anyone ever ask those questions? Politicians have there fans and skeptics. It is an assumed part of the process in non dictatorships. To phrase it as Maraniss does here gives Obama criticism an undertone of being culturally verboten. As if you were asking 'what drives the Jesus doubters', or 'what drives the Mohammed doubters.'

  • Pope Jimbo||

    What strikes me is that it seems like people are more excited to hear Bill talk than Obama. What happened to Obama being the greatest orator in the last 50 years?

  • ||

    Economy beats oratory.

  • bc15||

    "What happened to Obama being the greatest orator in the last 50 years?"

    His presidency.

  • ||

    Soooo is ReasonTV going to make a parody video of Clinton speaking at the RNC using edits or what?

  • bc15||

    Hmm, maybe the Republicans can get some other generic centrist/pragmatist who could pass as either a Republican or Democrat to speak at their convention. Oh, that's right, they'll have Mitt Romney.

  • Ardelle||

    Clinton will tell us how he, like President Obama, had to face down a newly invigorated conservative Congress -- and did it to his political advantage. What he won't tell us is how he recalibrated his goals when it happened and, rather than allow the economy and his presidency to sink under the weight of stubborn ideology, gave in to a rare bipartisan achievement, welfare reform. I doubt he'll have the time to talk about it, considering Obama has now gutted this reform into oblivion.

  • deedeemao||

    This article was featured on the excellent RealClearPolitics website under the title, "Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist"

    In regards to that point, some clarification is needed. Rather than, "Unlike Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist",the fact of the matter is that COMPARED to Obama, Bill Clinton Was a Centrist.

    Bill Clinton is really only a centrist if the center is now on the Left of the spectrum as is usually how "centrism" is described these days when only Liberal Republicans are considered centrists and even Obama has been called a centrist by many in the press.

    Clinton was a Leftist but a pragmatist. Obama is so ideologically rigid as to almost be a fanatic. Yet his take-no-prisoners tactics and disregard for the rule of law have afforded him great power to push this country to the far Left, to the point where "capitalist" has become a disparaging epithet.

    I'm old enough to remember a time when there was no such expression as "Liberal Republican" because it would have been a contradiction in terms. Instead, the first Liberal Republicans were called "Rockefeller Republicans" But they were not considered moderates,or centrists, they were considered anomalies.

    The last Democrat Moderate or centrist was Zell Miller and now the few Democrat moderates remaining will nonetheless vote with the extremists when it comes to something like Obamacare with not a single "Centrist' abstaining.

  • Ardelle||

    What he won't tell us is how he recalibrated his goals when it happened and, rather than allow the economy and his presidency to sink under the weight of stubborn ideology, gave in to a rare bipartisan achievement, welfare reform. I doubt he'll have the time to talk about it, considering Obama has now gutted this reform into oblivion.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement