Government Spending

Purging the Ghost of Bill Clinton's Economics From the Holy Spirit of Barack Obama


One of these two men is concerned with "this big long-term debt problem."

One of the more interesting and regrettable ideological developments over the past eight or so years has been the Democratic Party's repudiation of Bill Clinton's economic policies (a repudiation, fortunately for Clinton, that does not require rejecting the Big Dog himself, nor renouncing credit for his economic successes).

What form does the Clintonomics-purging take in our current political context? In complaints that President Barack Obama's economic policies are being guided by Clinton deficit-scold holdovers who do not sufficiently understand that deficits don't matter right now. Here's Jim Tankersley, writing in The Washington Post:

[Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin espoused an economic philosophy that would dominate Democratic policy circles through the Great Recession: one that favored opening global markets, deregulating Wall Street and limiting federal budget deficits. […]

For all its success in the 1990s, much of Rubin's philosophy took a beating in the following decade. The financial crisis spurred a move back to stricter rules on Wall Street institutions and financial products such as derivatives, which Rubin had advised Clinton against regulating. The disappearance of millions of manufacturing jobs in the face of technological change and foreign competition cast the downsides of free trade in a harsher light. […]

But the Rubinesque focus on the deficit, if anything, is stronger in the Obama administration than it was in Clinton's. Even before his first inauguration, while the economy was in a job-shedding, recessionary free fall, Obama's advisers were discussing an eventual pivot to deficit reduction. Now, by tapping Lew as Timothy Geithner's successor at Treasury, the president is signaling clearly that budget negotiations with congressional Republicans will dominate economic policymaking in his second term.

Let it bleed

Tankersley's canned history of the last two decades omits a crucial word: spending. (Except for this sentence: "Protecting federal spending on education and innovation is an attempt to keep the middle class from slipping even further, but it's nowhere near the fundamental overhaul in skills training that many economists believe is necessary….") Federal spending, in fact, has doubled since Bill Clinton left office. At least some of the economic thinkers who Tankersley disagrees with believe that jacking up government spending produces the very economic sluggishness he aims to combat, and that cutting spending would spur growth.

Democrats talk differently about spending than they did four years ago. Then, the president who had campaigned on a "net spending cut" was promising that "the hard decisions" on long-term entitlement promises would be "made under my watch, not someone else's," because "we are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick [the can] any further." Now, the president has reportedly declared that "we don't have a spending problem," a motion quickly seconded by the liberal commentariat.

What about debt and deficits? Well, back in July 2008, candidate Obama called George W. Bush's record of adding $5 trillion to the national debt "irresponsible" and even "unpatriotic." The Democratic Party platform that year vowed to "not mortgage our children's future on a mountain of debt." But now it's common to hear that the deficit/debt problem is not much of a problem after all.

Here's Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

Tim Geithner says, correctly, that we're actually pretty close to fixing our long-term deficit problems.

Geithner's actual words could have been more accurately condensed by replacing "pretty" with "theoretically," but the outgoing treasury secretary indeed posited the long-term fiscal situation as well within some minor technocratic tweaking. Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tells us to relax, because deficits "have started to decline." And Slate's Matthew Yglesias assures us that "When it comes to spending, really nobody cares about debt or deficits." I feel so much better already!

But here's the problem: Every time the Congressional Budget Office conducts a "long-term budget outlook," the result is always horror. Meaning, a chart that already starts out like this:

Chompy chjompy!

Ends up looking more like this:

That's cool, because Congress will totally do the right thing

And what happens when you grow that much debt? Your outlays become an interest-payment machine:


So while the Hendrik Hertzbergs of the world may be swooning over their president's new out-and-proud economic liberalism, the project of routing the last remaining Clintonomics-practitioners faces a familiar obstacle bigger than the Bubba himself: arithmetic.

"We've got to deal with this big long-term debt problem," he warned, in a less ballyhooed part of his famous 2012 Democratic National Convention speech, "or it will deal with us." And, he might have added, with those who claimed it was never a problem to begin with, at least not as long as Democrats control the White House.

RELATED: "Please read this if you think deficits don't matter and that spending doesn't drive deficits."

NEXT: Boy Scouts Close to Ending Ban on Gay Members

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Paul Ryan had the right tactic when he praised the former president and suggested that we would be seeing an economic recovery by now if Mr. Clinton was in the White House. If you get enough Republicans making that claim, Clinton won’t be able to help himself but publicly and vocally bask in that glow. It could be an effective thorn in the side of the Obamanomics pushers.

    1. Ryan is a big spending moron, as the facts don’t support Clinton being any better than anyone else.

      I get tired of hearing this bullshit about a surplus that never happened.

      The national debt went up EVERY DAMN YEAR that Clinton was in office.

      1. Okay, but it wasn’t going up by a trillion dollars a year. Maybe he wasn’t better, exactly, but he was certainly less bad.

      2. Yes, but, having looked at the numbers, part of that problem was that our 20-50 year out accounts payable list was growing faster than our current income. It was, at that time a structural problem as we were more in the position of someone who was putting off investing in our retirement fund, but not borrowing any more money. I agree, we could have rolled over fewer T-bills and paid down outstanding current debt faster than our obligations were growing, but our annual actual spending to income was negative from a cashflow perspective.

        Was it perfect? No, but it was a manageable situation until 9/11 and trying to psyche out the consumer and suddenly running the military-industrial complex (and the domestic spending increases necessary to make political sausage) to capacity.

        1. It was never workable since we were still spending all of the SS and Medicare “trust funds” away….and still not balancing the budget in a booming economy.

          1. Look at the GAAP accounting for those years.

            Not workable is underestimating the damage.

    2. . It could be an effective thorn in the side of the Obamanomics pushers.

      On paper, brilliant. When dealing with the Cult of Obama, like firing spitwads at HelmsDeep.

      1. Right on. The Obama Cult believes that there is an endless supply of Other People’s Money to extort and steal.
        They think deficits and debts are a hoax and that seizing the evil rich’s wealth is the answer to all of our problems.

        What libertarians need to say to voters is that most politicians are stealing your money, giving it to cronies, incompetent services, and lazy shits, stealing your kids’ future jobs by destroying all industries and investment sources, and lying about how the tax money will create jobs and security.

        In other words, the emperor has no clothes and no economic sense except to buy votes. The Cult will try and shut you up, or kill you, but the truth must be said.

        1. What libertarians need to say to voters is that most politicians are stealing your money, giving it to cronies, incompetent services, and lazy shits, stealing your kids’ future jobs by destroying all industries and investment sources, and lying about how the tax money will create jobs and security.

          What you describe is garden-variety progressivism. AKA, free stuff. Nah, it’s taken hold of the American electorate like something that takes hold of something that won’t let go.

          It’s free stuff all the way down.

          1. I am not nearly so cynical. The common man is uncommonly perceptive, and what America needs now (not what it wants), what it needs is for people running for office and commentators on the right to just tell them the truth: your country is bankrupt and it’s time to cut off the free shit before it kills us all.

            There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance and anxiety in America today, for the reason that everybody knows that something is horribly wrong and that it cannot last. I think the politicians and commentators who have the guts to say “start over, laissez-faire” could go further than you think.

            And don’t even trot out the Ron Paul analogy, he was already too politicized by the time people starting pay attention in 2008+. Don’t let the fate of Ron Paul discourage what you know is right, and do not be afraid to tell the people the ugly truth; it is what they are dying to hear.

  2. Of course this assumes that Clinton had real budget surpluses and that he had to dragged kicking and screaming into it.

    “economic liberalism”

    Matt Welch makes Sheldon Richman cry.

  3. So, the Democrats find out that deficit reduction requires cuts to their precious entitlements and immediately they become deficit denialists.

    Spending problem? What spending problem? That’s all just a conspiracy cooked up by the Koch brothers! They faked the numbers! You’re all out to get me!

    1. There’s no problem that this country faces that can’t be imagined away by Democrats.

  4. OT: No cops allowed….._pageNum_1

    1. Lol! I love it!

  5. Nothing has annoyed me more lately than the complete whitewashing of the Clinton legacy. To this day I don’t understand why this guy isn’t shamed in to obsolescence for lying UNDER OATH during testimony. The way the media fawns over him is just disgusting. And then you add in the carpetbagging Hillary, who has accomplished essentially nothing in her political career other than get elected and appointed SOS, and you have a mass hallucination regarding this entire family.

    I asked a lefty friend of mine this weekend to name me something that Hillary has ever done to deserve this level of admiration, and the answer was “um, she uh, well…she did….um…..well..”

    I get the point that this piece is making about the Clinton Economics being preferable to Obama’s, but the only reason Clinton wasn’t just like Obama was because of the congress forcing him to tack to the center.

    Why in the hell do we look at the Clinton’s as political royalty?

    I don’t get it.

    1. Why in the hell do we look at the Clinton’s as political royalty?

      He was good at dampening the panties of voters….the women too…not just guys like Chris Matthews!

    2. Who is “we”, white man?

      1. But I’m a white man. I can’t drive 55.

        1. You’re literally the worst person ever. Worse than NutraSweet. At least I can count on him to not make Sammy Hagar references.

          1. I am disappoint Epi. That was a meatwad reference.

            1. PROVE IT

              1. You shut your mouth, boy, before I cut it off and feed it to ya.

                1. Listen, don’t tell me how to do it. You tell him how to do it and he’ll tell me.

            2. And Meatwad was quoting the punchline to the old Lone Ranger joke: “Uh oh, Tonto, it looks like the Indians have us surrounded. We could be in a lot of trouble!”

    3. To this day I don’t understand why this guy isn’t shamed in to obsolescence for lying UNDER OATH during testimony.

      Come on! What is important is what he lied about, not the fact that he lied under oath! He lied about getting a hummer! Is getting a hummer a crime? No! So lying about it under oath shouldn’t be a crime either! It’s only a hummer!

      1. Yeah, when I brought up the whole “lying under oath, the one thing a PRESIDENT and an ATTORNEY should NEVER EVER EVER EVER DO” I got the whole “but it was over a blow job, who cares?”

        Of course we all know had it been Bush who lied about a hummer it would be all about THE WAR ON WOMEN, etc. Somehow the WAR ON WOMEN doesn’t apply to women who were raped by Clinton.

        1. To say that lying under oath matters differently depending on who is telling the lie and what the lie is about shows a complete and utter lack of principle.
          But with are liberal friends that goes without saying.

        2. It’s like you don’t understand that they are just partisan cunts.

          What my side does it right. What your side does it wrong. I don’t give a fuck what Clinton did, because he’s on my side. He’s allowed to lie under oath because ennacting our agenda is more important than such petty matters.

          Seriosuly, whatever makes you think that they are going to respond any other way?

          1. Hazel’s exactly correct. Their behavior is 100% predictable partisan bullshit. It should come as no surprise. In fact, anything other than this would be a surprise.

          2. TEAM is all there is. We are chimpanzees.

    4. He’s not shamed into obsolescence because most people don’t care. If someone wanted to throw Bill Clinton in jail for perjury, I wouldn’t complain. But I really don’t care. Why should I? They are all fucking liars. The technicality that one lied under oath and got caught (because they all lie under oath, I’d bet) really isn’t very interesting.

      A agree that it is stupid that the Clintons are still glorified as they are, but it is also stupid to still care that he lied about whatever he lied about.

    5. Yeah, I don’t get it either. I remember he was considered an “average” President now all of a sudden they look back on him as King Arthur. Guy degraded the Office with his horniness too.

      Unreal how beyond full of shit liberals are.

  6. And Slate’s Matthew Yglesias assures us that “When it comes to spending, really nobody cares about debt or deficits.”

    Yglesias….yawn! Anything fatboy prints about this topic is like talking to your ex-wife about the household spending. She doesn’t care she just wants to keep shopping!


    1. He’s right. No one cares about debt or deficits. They will care a great deal, however, when the dollar takes the huge dive necessary to keep the govt gravy train rolling.

      1. He’s right. No one cares about debt or deficits.

        No he isnt. I care, therefore he is wrong. It only takes one person.

    2. I have to admit, Yglesias appears to be the most overrated moron of all time. I can’t believe people can read his words and think anything other than “what a maroon!”

      1. My theory is that he is retarded and somewhere on the Aspy scale and the people at Slate employ him as sort of a feel good program.

        1. Aspy’s tend to actually have some cognitive abilities.

          1. Aspy’s Aspies.

            Apparently, I am not Aspy.

          2. True. But look at Yglesias.


            There is certainly something wrong with him. He sure isn’t normal.

        2. Do they provide his transportation too. A bus of some sort….shorter than what one might expect!?

      2. It tickled* me that, when James Buchanan passed, Yglesias was the one to eulogize him as the most overrated living economist.

        *angered me greatly

      3. Ezra Klein is worse.

    3. Based just on his avatar picture on Slate, he looks like he would be right at home in the coffee shop, smoking filterless cigarettes and plotting the overthrow of the Czar.

      He is the classic example of someone knowing just enough to be dangerous. He took one Macro class in college, and still fervently believes that the Keynsian macro models they showed him are absolutely true and incontrovertable. He then goes forth and incorporates every other tidbit or paper or stylized fact he runs across into that world view.

      1. He is one of those people that the Czar or Louis XVI should have shot on sight.

  7. OT


    (CBS News) Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that from Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University:

    I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution.

    This ass-clown was actually given air time on CBS News Sunday for this shit.

    The end is nigh.

    1. Oh boy softening them up for the Obama auto-coup against the “obstructionist” GOP?

      1. “Let me be clear: I’ve abandoned free market democratic principles to save the free market democratic system.”

        1. You know which term-limited prez staged a coup against the obstructionist legislature?

    2. From here. Same dude.……html?_r=0

      Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

      Wow. Talk about giving credit where credit is not due.

      1. Correlation, causation. You do the math.

      2. Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

        I’ll give the guy props, he just essentially made his entire profession irrelevant.

        1. No, his profession is Liberal Professor and he’s a mouth piece for the statist Left. His title is about as meaningful as Exxon’s VP of the ‘Environment and Rainbows’.

        2. No, he’ll be the one to tell us which parts of the Constitution are worth following and which are not.

          And that’s the beauty of it. If you simply follow the rules as written, there’s not much discussion to be had. If you get to pick and choose which rules are worth following, however, there can be unlimited debate. Which means unlimited conferences, unlimited opeds, books, etc.

          1. Thus rendering his profession invalid. It will no longer be “constitutional law”, it’ll be another class in political science, in which professors will be forced to teach how the whims of the electorate drive what we do, and that there is no law guiding any relevance to the constitution.

      3. Parasite discovers healthy host. Attaches it’s self. In the midst of the host catching a life threatening fever due to infection, insists that it was essential to the host’ well being and must suck even harder to keep it from dying.

    3. This guy was cited here in H&R previously… he did a NYT op-ed on the same issue.

      “Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.

      For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.”

      For this guy’s tortured mind, these assertions of Unconstitutional Executive Authority are features… not bugs.

      i also find his first-layer assertion (nay! its the *entire basis of his argument*!) that the constitution has limited importance or authority, “because its like old… written by old dead people”… to be an utterly specious and juvenile absence of logic, one which is probably intended to resonate with the illogic of the core progressive audience

      to wit:

      “” This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.

      If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.””

      read: who is the “we” or “our”?

      “We progressive liberals HAVE POWER NOW!! WE MUST USE IT!!”


      1. Did I not say that calls to repeal the 22nd Amendment were going to come? Well, this is just the same thing but more ambitious.

        These people think they’ve finally gotten within striking distance of permanently taking power. And they’re trying to figure out how to go for it.

      2. If we are to take back our own country

        Take it back from whom? Weren’t these considered racist code words during a recent election?

      3. And yet these same douchebags excoriated Bush for making signing statements when he signed bills, when their Dear Leader ignores Congress, the courts, and the Constitution whenever he sees fit.

      4. “We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.”

        See, there’s the problem right there. We do not have a right to the kind fo country we want. We have the right to do what we want and try to make our own lives what we want. But no. No one has the right to make the whole country what he wants though government force.

        And who the fuck is “We” anyway? I love how these assholes always presume to speak for the entire country when they know damn well that the country is pretty much 50/50 on any controversial issue.

      5. You know, an asshat like this makes me almost almost wish for a President Santorum that would give him a good taste of the receiving end of his suggested “constitutional disobedience”.

    4. As said in the MLs, I think he’ll be unhappy whether he tries to change that through intra- or extra-constitutional means.

    5. Yeah, his comments areba tad scary if you have more than a body temperature IQ. It’s not the first time this Prof has argued against the US Constitution, but CBS New giving him a high profile pulpit is a new low.

    6. What I don’t understand (or maybe I do) is that this seems so utterly simple; if the constitution is indeed inadequate to the times, there is a change process built right in to the document. The professor surely knows this correct? Why the dishonest commentary?

  8. Tim Geithner says, correctly, that we’re actually pretty close to fixing our long-term deficit problems.

    Yeah, we’re negative one trillion dollars closer to fixing it just this year!

    1. Tell me, Timmay, when interest goes up (and it will; that’s what “historic lows” means), how will your precious long-term debt and deficit problem look then? Waddayagonnado when the debt service alone is $1TT?

      1. And to put that in perspective, if US Federal interest rates were to go up to the level they were at in the mid 1990’s, the current debt service would be around $750 billion per year.

        Currently, due to 50 year highs on bond prices, the use is paying around $250 billion per year. As soon as the economy takes off, bond prices will fall and interest rates will start to climb.

  9. Spending problem? I don’t have a spending problem! I can quit or at least cut back any time I want to!

    It’s just that … well … right now is kind of a bad time because we are still just coming out of a recession. And right after that is the next election cycle, and we can’t really expect to cut then. And there is Global Warming – we can’t ignore that!

    It just isn’t like the old days when you got $1 trillion and you were good to party with that money for weeks! The stuff you get these days, well, it isn’t near the same quality, and it doesn’t last nearly as long, and by the time you share it with all your friends, there is barely anything left anyway.

    1. Yes, we’ll stop borrowing once we don’t need to, also.

  10. So, I can now write off Kevin Drum as a moron? Anybody who thinks Turbotax Timmy is the voice of veracity shouldn’t be permitted sharp objects.

    1. Your first clue to write him off as a moron is the fact that he writes for Mother Jones.

      1. Deluded socialists can have cogent points. This is not one of those times.

    2. Once again, I think people are too quick to dismiss people who promote blatantly wrong ideas as morons. Lying is a lot harder than telling the truth and takes a lot more intelligence. Most of these people aren’t morons, they are something far more dangerous.

      1. They are something far more execrable.

        There, fixed that for ya

  11. Without glancing at any words in the article, Clinton’s “surplus” was a lie.

    1. Look! I balanced the household budget by paying the bills with the retirement account instead of the credit card! I’m a genius!

      1. Technically, they’ve been using the retirement account to balance the budget since at least the 60s. That wasn’t Clinton’s idea. Clinton’s accomplishment was ONLY using the retirement account and not the credit card as well.

        1. This is true. While everyone is right in stating the the balanced budget was a fiction, he was the only POTUS in the last 50 years who was able to balance it even functioning under that fictional preset. While not entirely praiseworthy for being the smartest kid on the short bus, it’s at least something I’d pine for given the present alternative.

        2. But he didn’t. He still used the credit card. That’s the bait and switch.

      2. Except that we don’t really want the Federal government putting money back. They should operate as close to net zero as possible. If they were taking money out of the system to put it in a “lock box”, its just as bad as them dumping money into the system as far as monetary manipulation goes.

  12. I find it hilarious that libertarians thought the current Democratic party was in any way not a bunch of big government statists when their reaction to 9/11 and the Crash of 2008 was to go Full Retard.

    1. citation?

      You must have been hanging out elsewhere.

    2. You really need to stop hanging around with straw men.

    3. Who did what now?

    4. Yes, well, they had been looking for an excuse to go full retard since the 70s, which was the last time they were allowed to.

      Whatever Clinton might have said about the era of big government, whatever happened with the collapse of communism, they never believed it. They’ve always thought that if they had just been allowed to fully execute their plans in the 1970s everything would have been great.

    5. Any libertarian who believed Obama’s load of campaign hooey should be locked up as a danger to themselves and to others.

    6. You are confused, Mr. Gladstone.

  13. …””Protecting federal spending on education Teacher’s Unions and innovation other core-constituencies and donor cronies is an attempt to keep the middle class from slipping Democratic voting base even further tied to Federal largesse“”

    Man, that took some work

  14. I find it amusing to compare Bill Clinton’s personality with the the characteristics of a sociopath. Here’s what I note:

    He’s highly intelligent, superficially charming, indifferent to the suffering of other people (he bombed other countries to distract from his own political scandal), manipulative, has narcissistic tendencies that drive him to seek attention and self-aggrandizement, is a pathological liar, and his philandering is an example of living on the edge behavior and thrill seeking combined with a sense of entitlement regarding women.

    1. Most politicians share the same personality traits as a sociopath. Some would call them a prerequisite to being a successful politician: Amoral, narcissistic, driven by a lust for power in all its forms.

      1. I don’t think George Bush is a sociopath. I don’t think Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan were either. All of those guys were loyal husbands and showed that they could at some level understand and sacrifice for the needs of others.

        Bill Clinton and Obama really are a different bread of cat compared to other Presidents.

        1. bread of cat

          Ah, pain du chat. Good comfort food.

          1. breed. I mean. You should see my calico. She is up to 12 pounds at six months. She got huge. And she has this funky all weather medium coat. My old cat spent the winters huddled around a warm radiator. This cat lays on the floor in the draft from the door and doesn’t care. Water doesn’t even bother her. I think she is part Maine Coon.

            1. A calico Maine Coon? Christ. You should train her to kill burglars.

              1. Would you two stop talking about pussies?

              2. There is something funky in there. I don’t know if it is Maine Coon or what. But I have never had a cat who didn’t mind the cold and didn’t care if she got wet.

                1. I’ve had several who loved the snow, but I’ve never had one that liked water. But she’s a shorthair, right? I have a hard time imagining a Maine Coon without the Maine Coon coat.

                  Episiarch, shut up, you pussy. You’re a pussy.

                  1. I like turtles.

                  2. She is not short hair. She is medium hair. She has like a double coat with some of it short but some of it longer.

              3. A calico Maine Coon? Christ. You should train her to kill burglars.

                Kill them with what? Love? Rays of pure love?

                They are the most mellow cats ever, assuming they aren’t running in fear of the mailman THAT HE HEARS 6 DAYS A WEEK!

                1. Calicos are evil demons from Hell, and Maine Coons are thousand-pound behemoth monsters. The combination is too horrible to contemplate.

                  1. We have a polydactyl that is Satan’s housepet.

          2. +1.

            I had to chuckle at this one.

            Pain du chat avec un cafe au lait!

        2. There was a time when we expected more out of politicians. They should have some level of reserve, some detachment. They should appear to be able to dispassionately consider the different sides to a problem and come up with the best solution.

          Looking back, it is hard to remember how strange and different Bill Clinton’s “Ah feel yo’ pain!” demeanor was. Everyone proclaimed it so refreshing, so honorable! Like every rube ever taken in by a sob story, they just wanted to believe him, to believe that he really, really cared about them.

          1. He was totally different. In a different era, Clinton would have been a failed governor doing the rubber chicken circuit. The fact that he ended up President says bad things about our political culture.

        3. Hell, even Nixon genuinely loved and was faithful to Pat. I find it hard to picture someone like Bill Clinton actually loving someone selflessly.

          1. Nixon was some sort of Sophoclean tragic hero who was undone by his hubris. Bill Clinton is much more boring. He was never anything but an upjumped hillbilly conman.

            1. The Nixon library is really a fascinating place to go. It’s a place where you can both hear the disturbing things he said on the tapes regarding Vietnam and at the same time read the love letters he would write to his wife when he was younger.

          2. Here is the thing with Nixon. Even after all he did, there were still people out there, including a few Democrats, who considered him a friend, even as strange as he could be.

            I can’t think of a single person who would call Bill Clinton a “friend”.

            1. Here’s the difference: If Nixon was a friend of yours and you had a young, hot-looking wife or girlfriend, you wouldn’t have to worry about him getting into her pants – not even if he had the opportunity. Clinton? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

        4. “Bill Clinton and Obama really are a different bread of cat compared to other Presidents.”

          That’s not really a fair comparison. Bill Clinton might be mildly sociopathic, but his desire to be loved by everybody precluded anything truly horrible. Indeed, Hillary was always scarier than Bill.

          However, with Obama’s ideological record and another Constitutional Law professor busy prattling on about the modern irrelevance of the Constitution, I’m starting to have morbid thoughts. I

          1. Bill Clinton might be mildly sociopathic, but his desire to be loved by everybody precluded anything truly horrible.

            Except, you know, for Waco. Other then those hundred civilians murdered by federal stormtroopers, nothing truly horrible.

            1. “Except, you know, for Waco. Other then those hundred civilians murdered by federal stormtroopers, nothing truly horrible.”

              Yes, that’s a good point.

          2. Professors in power are the most dangerous kinds of politicians.

            Wilson notwithstanding.

        5. All of those guys were loyal husbands

          Are you sure? Was Reagan loyal to his first wife, I thought his relationship with Nancy started before that one was over.

      2. Most politicians share the same personality traits as a sociopath.

        Natural selection.

    2. But he is pro abortion. So it is okay that he abused all of those women. And further, all of the women he abused were white trash anyway. So what difference does it make?

      That is pretty much the feminist defense of Bill Clinton.

      1. The feminist defense of Bill is that secretly they’d all like him to fuck them – or at least want to fuck them.


    Sylvia Plath, because there is no sexy like crazy sexy.

    1. Holy shit, she makes Marilyn Monroe look plain-looking and sane.

    2. Mumsie Woo Woo is just the hugest fan of Plath ever. Her verse never did it for me though.

  16. Tim Geithner says, correctly, that we’re actually pretty close to fixing our long-term deficit problems

    He’s talking, of course, about the assault weapons ban they intend to decree soon.

  17. There is a dude that knows whats going on. Wow.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.