I was never a huge fan of Bill Clinton but I really liked his speech at the DNC.
Have you listened to it? Do you like it?
I especially enjoyed it how he referred to the Republican discourse as existing in the “alternative universe.” When I listen to Todd Akin and Co, this is how I always feel.
The question that Clinton asked and that I find very important: are you doing better now than in 2008, when Obama came into office?
I definitely am. So does N. My university is doing much better financially. How about you? Feel any differences from the time when the economy crashed at the end of 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDhk3BHi6Q&feature=player_embedded#!
Clarissa's Blog 
Personally, I am better. And I also live in a state that benefited from the bailout of the auto industry.
LikeLike
And my state’s economy finally started getting back on track after we elected a Democrat Governor. He only squeezed by his crazy opponent with a handful of votes.
LikeLike
You gotta love Bill, no wonder he was a hit with the ladies. 😉
LikeLike
I don’t like this kind of guy. I mean, if we are speaking about him as a man, not as a politician. I like serious, quiet and sensitive, not smirking, talkative and smooth.
LikeLike
Ok, I should have said, “many” of the ladies. 🙂
LikeLike
The general ‘climate’ is definitively better, but I am not optimistic about my university: more and more administrators and less and less professors, more and more geared towards [really, the illusion of] profit and less and less focused on education.
Like you, not a huge fan of Clinton.
LikeLike
You are so right. This is the exact definition of what’s happening: these brainless administrators chase the illusion of profit and sacrifice real things for it.
LikeLike
For the sake of clarification: I do not mind profit, but universities should not be for-profit organizations.
LikeLike
From a for-profit university to a diploma mill there is just one short step. We have all seen this happen.
LikeLike
I still remember when he gave his speech at the 2004 DNC. I recall that I thought it was a mistake to let him speak, because all that it did was showcase how much more eloquent and charismatic than John Kerry he was; at least that’s not an issue this time around.
LikeLike
Oh, John Kerry. We all so wanted him to win but he was so uncharismatic. Obama, however, has bucketfuls of charisma for an American politician. I can’t wait for his debates with Romney.
LikeLike
I remember watching a debate between the two candidates on a TV screen at my school cafeteria that had the sound turned off. Just looking at the facial expressions of the two candidates I found myself thinking, “Oh crap! Kerry doesn’t have a chance!”
LikeLike
Off the topic but have you seen this article? You have compared Romney and Kerry a few times and so I thought of you when I read this (even though I’ve never met you!) 😉
http://cjonline.com/news/2012-09-06/kerry-plays-romney-mock-debates-obama
LikeLike
It was a good speech, but I didn’t like the strawman he engaged in with claiming that you can choose between a “We’re in it together society” or a “You’re on your own society.” That is not the Republican view of society. To the Democrats, if you are not for all of their big government ideas, then you must believe that society is to be a cold-hearted, ruthless, every person for themself, no one helps anyone else, type of society. “Society” and government to them are one and the same.
It never occurs to them that there are people who see “society” and “government” as being separate. Conservative belief is circled around the following:
1) Limited government (which is not the same as being anti-government)
2) Individualism (which is not the same as selfishness, no more than charity is the same as communism)
3) Hard work
4) Society and helping one’s fellow human, i.e. the family, the community, church, charity, and so forth.
Note none of the things in #4 require government to be involved.
Now one can very much argue that the conservative argument is the wrong way, that we do need bigger government than they prefer, but to claim that only the Democratic party is the party for people caring about one another is simply wrong.
LikeLike
In what way are Republican claims about “small government” true? They always increase amount of government intrusion, budget, military, interventionism, etc. and also transfer of taxpayers’ money to private hands. I just do not consider that small, myself.
LikeLike
Which transfer of taxpayer’s money to private hands? Also, the Republican party most definitely does not always adhere to being conservative. The military I’d say our government is pretty conservative about, as it is always under-funded. The only forms of intrusion that I know of are related to sex and body issues. Which I agree with you there, they are hypocrites, but then so are the Democrats for claiming they’re for freedom but trying to regulate so much else of people’s lives.
LikeLike
“Which transfer of taxpayer’s money to private hands”
– Bailouts. Or haven’t you heard? 🙂
“The only forms of intrusion that I know of are related to sex and body issues. Which I agree with you there, they are hypocrites”
– once again but slowly: the Patriot Act. Look it up. It isn’t about sex at all.
“so are the Democrats for claiming they’re for freedom but trying to regulate so much else of people’s lives.”
– Can you offer a few examples? Anything even remotely similar to the intrusiveness of the patriot Act and transvaginal probes?
LikeLike
For one example: look at the privatization of the military. Connected is the imbrication of the government with the arms industry. These things just for a start.
LikeLike
“1) Limited government (which is not the same as being anti-government)”
– Yes, the patriot Act is a sign of a very very limited government.
“2) Individualism (which is not the same as selfishness, no more than charity is the same as communism)”
– Taking the taxpayers’ money and bailing out your cronies with it is surely extremely individualistic. Trying to police people’s sex lives aalso is. And invading women’s vaginas by the government is also a sign of a very very limited government.
“3) Hard work”
– Yes, like Blankfein and Co worked so very hard to be handed over a buttload of taxpayers’ money.
“4) Society and helping one’s fellow human, i.e. the family, the community, church, charity, and so forth.”
– Bush so helped his fellow human billionaires at mine and your expense.
“Note none of the things in #4 require government to be involved.”
– Bailouts, the Patriot Act, transvaginal probes, Guantanamo, Iraq – absolutely no government involved in any of these things.
“Now one can very much argue that the conservative argument is the wrong way, that we do need bigger government than they prefer, but to claim that only the Democratic party is the party for people caring about one another is simply wrong.”
– You are absolutely right. Romney totally cares about his fellow billionaires and he will prove it by raising your and my taxes to give them a huge gift. He will also prove his commitment to a small government by handing over to the Pentagon 3 trln more money that it even requested. Because a growing army is a sign of a small government.
LikeLike
Clarissa, that was brilliant!
It is almost scary that those conservative cardboard cutout talking points were blown down with such bevity.
LikeLike
I especially loved, “It’s arithmetic!” and “Republicans = zeeeero!” 🙂
LikeLike
Best comment’s answer ever! While I was reading I was thinking about many of the things you mentioned, but you just nailed everyone of them!
LikeLike
“- Yes, the patriot Act is a sign of a very very limited government.”
The Patriot Act was a bipartisan piece of legislation that has been reviewed very extensively and modified. It’s main feature is allowing the different intelligence agencies to be able to share information with one another so as to prevent another 9/11 from happening (as beforehand, they couldn’t share such information).
“- Taking the taxpayers’ money and bailing out your cronies with it is surely extremely individualistic. Trying to police people’s sex lives aalso is. And invading women’s vaginas by the government is also a sign of a very very limited government.”
Many in the GOP were against the bailouts. IMO, the bailouts were necessary to keep the economy from collapsing, which is why Bush did them. Initially, they did not bail out one of the major institutions (Lehman Brothers). The idea is to make it where such bailouts are never needed again. I agree with you on the policing people’s sex lives and vaginas, that is where the GOP are extraordinarily hypocritical.
“- Yes, like Blankfein and Co worked so very hard to be handed over a buttload of taxpayers’ money.”
How does this go against the GOP belief in hard work?
“- Bush so helped his fellow human billionaires at mine and your expense.”
Two things though :
1) Bush was not a conservative for one thing. Remember, he signed into law what at the time was the largest government expansion into healthcare in decades. He also signed a major piece of financial market regulation, and expanded the federal government’s role into public education. He also tried to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and said he’d sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban if the Congress would pass it.
2) I think the bailouts were responsibility on the part of Bush. Instead of risking the economy collapsing, he took the very controversial route and bailed out the financial system to save things. Remember, that was an extreme situation. It wasn’t just a random couple of companies going out of business and the government deciding to bail them out anyway.
“- Bailouts, the Patriot Act, transvaginal probes, Guantanamo, Iraq – absolutely no government involved in any of these things.”
Government isn’t needed for any of the things I mentioned in terms of citizens grouping together to help one another.
“- You are absolutely right. Romney totally cares about his fellow billionaires and he will prove it by raising your and my taxes to give them a huge gift. He will also prove his commitment to a small government by handing over to the Pentagon 3 trln more money that it even requested. Because a growing army is a sign of a small government.”
I doubt he will raise anyone’s taxes, and I don’t know what gift for the wealthy you are referring to.
Also, Romney is not your standard Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Democrat who became a pro-choice Republican to win office, and signed into law a universal healthcare bill as governor of Massachussettes, which Obama’s bill is based off of. He, on paper, became a pro-life Republican, but that is just to be able to run for president. It’s like how Obama said he was against gay marriage when running for president, and attended that church with that radical minister. It’s just political maneuvering. So I honestly wouldn’t worry too much if Romney was to get elected.
LikeLike
“Bush was not a conservative for one thing.”
– Maybe there is a planet on which he is ultra-progressive. According to the accepted political vocabulary in this country, he definitely is a conservative. Before continuing this discussion, please consult a dictionary.
“So I honestly wouldn’t worry too much if Romney was to get elected.”
– If paying a lot more taxes to keep Mr. Blankfein in caviar doesn’t bother you, then that’s fantastic. Maybe you should start mailing him part of your salary directly.
“Government isn’t needed for any of the things I mentioned in terms of citizens grouping together to help one another.”
– Please spare me meaningless platitudes. I’m talking to you about reality, about facts, not about weird fantasies.
“I doubt he will raise anyone’s taxes, and I don’t know what gift for the wealthy you are referring to.”
– Don’t wonder. Just go read Ryan’s budget. It isn’t classified, or anything.
“I think”
– I have not seen any evidence of that so far. All you do is wonder and guess instead of finally reading something and informing yourself.
LikeLike
I think this is a great example of political public discourse today. Somebody presents some generic platitudes that ANYBODY would agree but claims to apply only to their viewpoint. And when anybody points out an obvious example that contradicts the statement, there are reasons why it doesn’t apply in this instance but but rarely do these further arguments address the point of contention.
Pointing out something obvious does not cause pause for a person to stop and re-evaluate and address the conflict, but instead prompts a retrenchment of core beliefs and not a careful analysis of where ideas conflict with reality or even address where somebody might see the same evidence different. It quickly devolves from broad statements meant to prove a point to minute points of personal opinion presented as evidence proving even more unclear broader thoughts.
But my main complaint is that if you offer up these generic truism and somebody challenges you, one should try to imagine the best argument of the contrary view, not just pull out old ammunition that doesn’t really apply.
LikeLike
“- Maybe there is a planet on which he is ultra-progressive. According to the accepted political vocabulary in this country, he definitely is a conservative. Before continuing this discussion, please consult a dictionary.”
Really, what defines a conservative? There are many different types of conservatives. It most certainly cannot fit into a dictionary definition. By the arguments you just made, he most definitely was not a conservative. He was only a conservative socially.
“- If paying a lot more taxes to keep Mr. Blankfein in caviar doesn’t bother you, then that’s fantastic. Maybe you should start mailing him part of your salary directly.”
Romney is not calling to raise anyone’s taxes.
“- Please spare me meaningless platitudes. I’m talking to you about reality, about facts, not about weird fantasies.”
I’m talking about facts too, not any weird fantasies. So in your world, there is no community organization, no charity, or church involvement? Those things exist a great deal. None require government.
“- Don’t wonder. Just go read Ryan’s budget. It isn’t classified, or anything.”
Ryan’s budget doesn’t involve raising anyone’s taxes, or not in the way you might think. It creates two tax brackets, 10% and 25%, while closing loopholes. The only people who might see a raise in taxes under that would be the 50% who pay nothing in federal income tax to begin with right now.
Also, the Ryan plan has about as much a chance of becoming law as an ice cube does of surviving in an oven.
LikeLike
“Romney is not calling to raise anyone’s taxes.”
– Please read the Ryan budget.
“Really, what defines a conservative?”
– Please read a dictionary.
“I’m talking about facts too, not any weird fantasies. So in your world, there is no community organization, no charity, or church involvement?”
– Please stop trolling.
“Ryan’s budget doesn’t involve raising anyone’s taxes, or not in the way you might think.”
– Please don’t lie that you have seen it.
“Also, the Ryan plan has about as much a chance of becoming law as an ice cube does of surviving in an oven.”
– Please quit gambling.
🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
“- Please read the Ryan budget.”
I’ve seen it, but don’t see where it says about raising anyone’s taxes. That is what certain people claim who’ve done analyses of it.
“- Please read a dictionary.”
A simple dictionary definition cannot define conservatism. For example, there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives (historically conservatives have not been for a large standing military or interventionist foreign policy for example), etc…
“- Please stop trolling.”
Not trolling at all. My point was that the things I was mentioning aren’t fantasies at all.
“- Please don’t lie that you have seen it.”
Not lying.
LikeLike
@ Kyle: Ryan doesn’t _technically_ propose raising taxes on anyone; however, since he proposes to eliminate many “middle-class friendly” tax credits (such as the dependent care credit; the “home ownership credit” etc. etc.) it will ultimately cause the middle and lower-middle classes to pay more. I don’t have the link right in front of me but a politically neutral group of economists determined that though the Ryan budget initially appears to lower taxes on the middle class by $1000 a year (which isn’t much), it will, after the credits are eliminated, actually have the net effect of causing the average middle class payer to pay an additional $3000 in taxes. Meanwhile, the Ryan budget will _cut_ taxes on the average top earner by $250,000. That’s how I understand it at any rate.
LikeLike
Is that really “raising taxes” though or just a product of simplifying a tax code that right now makes it where 50% of the population pays nothing in federal income tax? I mean eliminating credits is eliminating money the government pays out, not really raising taxes. If you get rid of the tax credits, then of course that 50% will start paying something. Who is the “average top earner?” You have to be making in the millions of dollars a year, which isn’t the average top earner, to get a tax cut of hundreds of thousands.
LikeLike
“Also, Romney is not your standard Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Democrat ”
– You have really got to start reading and learning before you speak. Romney is a fanatical Mormon. He cannot be pro-choice by definition. The guy hates women passionately. And since I saw his wife, I can understand why.
LikeLike
“Is that really “raising taxes” though or just a product of simplifying a tax code ”
– A product that raises taxes is raising taxes.
LikeLike
“- You have really got to start reading and learning before you speak. Romney is a fanatical Mormon. He cannot be pro-choice by definition. The guy hates women passionately. And since I saw his wife, I can understand why.”
I don’t think it’s possible for him to be a fanatical Mormon, or he never would have run as a pro-choice politician. A fanatic will not put political expediency ahead of their religion or belief system.
LikeLike
“I don’t think . . .”
– Finally, you have confessed the truth! 🙂
Romney was a Mormon preacher and surely wears the magical panties now.
LikeLike
” If you get rid of the tax credits, then of course that 50% will start paying something.”
– Forget about the mythical 50%. You will pay more in taxes. But that’s fine because Mr. Blankfein will be very appreciative.
“Who is the “average top earner?””
– Read the Ryan budget. It’s all there.
“You have to be making in the millions of dollars a year, which isn’t the average top earner, to get a tax cut of hundreds of thousands.”
– When people post completely trivial observations that add nothing to a discussion that is called trolling. Under Ryan budget, people who make millions of dollars will get a huge tax cut at your personal expense. Not some non-existent 50% of whatever. You. Your expense.
LikeLike
His having been a Mormon preacher doesn’t make him a fanatic. You have to look a” If you get rid of the tax credits, then of course that 50% will start paying something.”
“- Forget about the mythical 50%. You will pay more in taxes. But that’s fine because Mr. Blankfein will be very appreciative.”
The 50% that don’t pay federal income taxes isn’t mythical. It gets mis-stated a lot as saying that 50% don’t pay taxes, which is wrong. It’s 50% don’t pay federal income taxes.
“- When people post completely trivial observations that add nothing to a discussion that is called trolling. Under Ryan budget, people who make millions of dollars will get a huge tax cut at your personal expense. Not some non-existent 50% of whatever. You. Your expense.”
I didn’t see it as a trivial observation. The problem with Ryan’s budget is that he claims they will prevent wealthy from getting a tax cut by closing up loopholes while reducing the tax rate, but he doesn’t really specify what particular loopholes would be closed.
LikeLike
“The problem with Ryan’s budget is that he claims they will prevent wealthy from getting a tax cut by closing up loopholes while reducing the tax rate, but he doesn’t really specify what particular loopholes would be closed.”
– And what does this tell you?
LikeLike
I noticed I messed up the very first part of my last post. I meant it to say:
His having been a Mormon preacher doesn’t make him a fanatic. You have to look at the fact that he also was a fairly liberal governor.
LikeLike