Bout ta 'SPLAIN each other. [contextly_sidebar id="VWlYFWOeQkGusrsdYqZbRWOWoVHIDlRd"]Oh hey Wonkers, did you watch Thursday night's Big Exciting Democratic Debate? Well see ya wouldn't wanna be ya if you didn't! It was more of the same we've come to expect from those two crazy kids, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But there was a twist! It seems the candidates have decided they would like to have some fights now over which one of them REALLY loves Obama, which one TRULY has the right to inherit his Kenyan Usurper Dictator Of America throne.
Small quibble. Hillary would be second oldest at inauguration, about 8 months younger than Reagan was. Sanders and Trump would be the oldest ever though.
Just an aside ... "The baby boomers wouldn't have voted for a real liberal, but things are changing."
No one knows what would have happened if we had been given the choice. We very well may have elected liberals, but back in the 90s we were only one part of the electorate. The very diverse American electorate also contained members of other generations; quite a few of them in fact*. Plus in 1992 the long shadow of Reaganism was still very present, and the pain (for Democrats) of the 1984 election spanking was still very fresh. Not to mention the lingering embarrassment from 1988, an election that the Democrats really should have won. (Then, as now, I was quite politically engaged** and I remember all of this very well.)
* When one generation reaches maturity, the previous one (or two or even three) doesn't just disappear. They stick around (for awhile) and continue to vote and to have an impact on election outcomes. No election ever has results that are determined by a single generation's choices.
** I have closely followed every US Presidential election as it happened since 1964. I remember the 1960 election too, but not in as much detail.
During the 2008-9 meltdown, I was initially appalled by Obama's focus on Wall Street. Eventually, I came to believe that this was based on his analysis: that maintaining faith in the stability of the existing global financial market was more important than economic justice or the short-term GDP of the US.*
I didn't agree with his priorities then, and I don't now, but we have this thing called "representative democracy", which means everybody concedes decision-making to somebody who was selected by a majority of those who bothered to vote (but I digress). So our representatives (or President) get to make decisions on our behalf. That's part of the deal.
Also, too, additionally, I've been pretty well satisfied by BHO. I was a little taken aback by his backing upon privacy rights, and unpleasantly surprised by his stance on drone strikes. But, I was completely flabbergasted by his conversion on gay marriage, and I am (of course) a huge fan of Finally-Don't-Give-A-Fuck-Obama.
I think he was overwhelmed by the enormity of the economic meltdown and went into triage mode, figuring keeping the banking system from going critical mass was priority one (which was true, like it or not). He also faced an immediately hostile GOP and a public that was scared and angry. My biggest gripe is that Obama didn't push harder on getting a pound of flesh from Wall Street once things started to stabilize, but I honestly don't know how realistic that would have been in that climate. Sometimes his propensity to listen to the experts cuts both ways and surrounding himself his Wall Street advisors was probably one of those times that didn't pay off, as all the advice he was given was so obviously banker friendly. Also too, that George Soros gets around, doesn't he?
Hillary wants to claim the Obama legacy advantage. Bernie is actually running against it as an outsider, but he has to be careful. Democrats probably can't win without it.
Actually, what she said was that we would endanger Obamacare if we go for single payer.
That's kind of like saying we gals better stop with that push for equal pay or we might lose the vote.
Small quibble. Hillary would be second oldest at inauguration, about 8 months younger than Reagan was. Sanders and Trump would be the oldest ever though.
Yes, you are right.
Just an aside ... "The baby boomers wouldn't have voted for a real liberal, but things are changing."
No one knows what would have happened if we had been given the choice. We very well may have elected liberals, but back in the 90s we were only one part of the electorate. The very diverse American electorate also contained members of other generations; quite a few of them in fact*. Plus in 1992 the long shadow of Reaganism was still very present, and the pain (for Democrats) of the 1984 election spanking was still very fresh. Not to mention the lingering embarrassment from 1988, an election that the Democrats really should have won. (Then, as now, I was quite politically engaged** and I remember all of this very well.)
* When one generation reaches maturity, the previous one (or two or even three) doesn't just disappear. They stick around (for awhile) and continue to vote and to have an impact on election outcomes. No election ever has results that are determined by a single generation's choices.
** I have closely followed every US Presidential election as it happened since 1964. I remember the 1960 election too, but not in as much detail.
During the 2008-9 meltdown, I was initially appalled by Obama's focus on Wall Street. Eventually, I came to believe that this was based on his analysis: that maintaining faith in the stability of the existing global financial market was more important than economic justice or the short-term GDP of the US.*
I didn't agree with his priorities then, and I don't now, but we have this thing called "representative democracy", which means everybody concedes decision-making to somebody who was selected by a majority of those who bothered to vote (but I digress). So our representatives (or President) get to make decisions on our behalf. That's part of the deal.
Also, too, additionally, I've been pretty well satisfied by BHO. I was a little taken aback by his backing upon privacy rights, and unpleasantly surprised by his stance on drone strikes. But, I was completely flabbergasted by his conversion on gay marriage, and I am (of course) a huge fan of Finally-Don't-Give-A-Fuck-Obama.
*Or maybe he was paid off by George Soros.
there's a lot of truth to that- lots of people heard what they wanted to hear, not what he was saying
I think he was overwhelmed by the enormity of the economic meltdown and went into triage mode, figuring keeping the banking system from going critical mass was priority one (which was true, like it or not). He also faced an immediately hostile GOP and a public that was scared and angry. My biggest gripe is that Obama didn't push harder on getting a pound of flesh from Wall Street once things started to stabilize, but I honestly don't know how realistic that would have been in that climate. Sometimes his propensity to listen to the experts cuts both ways and surrounding himself his Wall Street advisors was probably one of those times that didn't pay off, as all the advice he was given was so obviously banker friendly. Also too, that George Soros gets around, doesn't he?
Hillary wants to claim the Obama legacy advantage. Bernie is actually running against it as an outsider, but he has to be careful. Democrats probably can't win without it.
But does Bernie think Michelle is fat?
Gotcher Amen Corner right here!
At least there wasn't a speculation about her underwear.
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, is the road to Heaven paved with bad ones?
A SCOTUS gig would be more useful.
On another blog, I suggested that if Bernie won, it would be great if he "appointed Obama and Clinton to the Supreme Court."
Got a reply from a man explaining why Bill Clinton would not be a good choice.
But there's totally no gender-based prejudice out there in Electionland.
Get used to it. By the time this is over, you'll be seeing campaignkrap on Dumpsters and restroom stall doors.
No honey, it's just another online tchotchke. Let's not wax too melodramatic here.