The Clinton Thread II

[Matt]

He isn't. He's the first half-black president. He might get a little asterisk next to his name when a black person is elected president, that people at the time considered him the first.

None of them will be particularly remembered in 25 years, much less in 50 years, and not at all in a 100.

That is just naive.

I'll at least give Hillary credit for knowing how to do her job as a Senator. Unlike most New York politicians who pretty much just represent New York City, Hillary actually focused most of her attention on Upstate New York. It was like we actually had a say in the Senate for once.

And then she left and got replaced by Gillibrand who became Chuck Schumer's stoogie and betrayed her moderate principles just so she could avoid a revolt from NYC Democrats

Only because she didn't have to cater to the powers that be of NYC due to her name.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That is just naive.

I don't follow.

 

[Marx]

I don't follow.

President Obama is the FIRST minority President ever elected. He will be remembered for a very long time regardless of how good or bad his presidency is.

 

[Thundercrack85]

President Obama is the FIRST minority President ever elected. He will be remembered for a very long time regardless of how good or bad his presidency is.

That's it? Well, at least he'll get a little box in the history books noting that. Better than Bush and Clinton.

 

[DACrowe]

I really doubt history will remember any of these people. A bunch of Hayes, Pierces, and Harrisons. If you don't know who those three are, they were presidents at some point.

These last three presidents will be lucky to have a school named after them twenty years from now.

I actually suspect Bush Sr. and Clinton will both be elevated higher than their legacies deserve in contrast to Bush, but be much less flashy to historians in decades (or centuries) to come. But W. and Obama will be long remembered. W. is going to go down as one of the absolute worst presidents in US history and his invasion into Iraq, bungling of following through after the 9/11 attack in pursuing the culprits, exploding deficits, public endorsement of torture, overseeing the 2008 crash, and generally ignoring civil liberties is going to gain him a slew of historical critics for a long time to come. And if the US does truly decline in the 21st century (I am not convinced by so many of the cynics and misanthropes out there), historians will trace the beginning back to his first term.

Obama is the first black president. That is a major historical point, especially considering the country's long history of racism, bigotry and slavery. In fact, the fact he was an infant during passage of the Civil Rights Act and King's "I have a dream speech" and became POTUS 40-something years later will also be a point of fascination with historians. As for Obama's record? It is way too early to judge how he will be remembered. If he is reelected and HCR (or "Obamacare") sticks, it will become a major aspect of American life like social security and Medicare. If it is repealed it will be a major piece of political history of a social service that Americans rejected. This program, allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden will be remembered. His handling of the economy? Well that will entirely depend on how it grows in the next few years. But, he could be very much like Harry Truman and George Bush Sr. in that they were far more praised decade(s) after leaving office than they were while in it.

 

[Marx]

Well said, as always, DA.

 

[Matt]

I actually suspect Bush Sr. and Clinton will both be elevated higher than their legacies deserve in contrast to Bush, but be much less flashy to historians in decades (or centuries) to come. But W. and Obama will be long remembered. W. is going to go down as one of the absolute worst presidents in US history and his invasion into Iraq, bungling of following through after the 9/11 attack in pursuing the culprits, exploding deficits, public endorsement of torture, overseeing the 2008 crash, and generally ignoring civil liberties is going to gain him a slew of historical critics for a long time to come. And if the US does truly decline in the 21st century (I am not convinced by so many of the cynics and misanthropes out there), historians will trace the beginning back to his first term.

Obama is the first black president. That is a major historical point, especially considering the country's long history of racism, bigotry and slavery. In fact, the fact he was an infant during passage of the Civil Rights Act and King's "I have a dream speech" and became POTUS 40-something years later will also be a point of fascination with historians. As for Obama's record? It is way too early to judge how he will be remembered. If he is reelected and HCR (or "Obamacare") sticks, it will become a major aspect of American life like social security and Medicare. If it is repealed it will be a major piece of political history of a social service that Americans rejected. This program, allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden will be remembered. His handling of the economy? Well that will entirely depend on how it grows in the next few years. But, he could be very much like Harry Truman and George Bush Sr. in that they were far more praised decade(s) after leaving office than they were while in it.

We may not agree on much, but I agree with this.

Bush Jr. was president during the most costly attack on American soil in history as well as president during (most of) the second longest American war of all time. Beyond that, he presided over the beginning of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. He is Herbert Hoover and FDR rolled into one. Like both men, his presidency was a major turning point in American history. And even if he weren't, he is a war president. War presidents are always remembered.

As for Obama...like you said, even if he serves one term and his legacy turns out to be on par with Jimmy Carter, the fact is he is the first African American president in history. That won't simply be a small box as Thundercrack seems to imply. There will be chapters in history books devoted to him.

 

[DACrowe]

Who were you rooting for prior to Obama's nom? Always been curious.

In 2007, I just observed all the candidates. I didn't really have a favorite.

After Iowa and NH, and it came down to either Obama or Hillary, I sided with Obama. I don't regret that decision because I think people always think the grass is greener. I've always thought Hilary was more political and flexible than Obama, so all the liberals complaining Obama's too moderate or corporate are deluded if they yearn for Hillary. But I never hated or disliked Hillary Clinton; I was just tired of Bushes and Clintons and thought Obama brought a great new energy in that campaign. Also, I read "Dreams From My Father" in 2008, which is the closest I think we'll ever come to knowing how he really thinks and I found his interior probably the most thoughtful and genuinely likable of any modern politician I've seen.

With that said I voted hoping for a Roosevelt and got more of a Truman. But, as before, I'm not one to yearn for more Clintonian policy right now.

 

[DACrowe]

Who were you rooting for prior to Obama's nom? Always been curious.

In 2007, I just observed all the candidates. I didn't really have a favorite.

After Iowa and NH, and it came down to either Obama or Hillary, I sided with Obama. I don't regret that decision because I think people always think the grass is greener. I've always thought Hilary was more political and flexible than Obama, so all the liberals complaining Obama's too moderate or corporate are deluded if they yearn for Hillary. But I never hated or disliked Hillary Clinton; I was just tired of Bushes and Clintons and thought Obama brought a great new energy in that campaign. Also, I read "Dreams From My Father" in 2008, which is the closest I think we'll ever come to knowing how he really thinks and I found his interior probably the most thoughtful and genuinely likable of any modern politician I've seen.

With that said I voted hoping for a Roosevelt and got more of a Truman. But, as before, I'm not one to yearn for more Clintonian policy right now.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I actually suspect Bush Sr. and Clinton will both be elevated higher than their legacies deserve in contrast to Bush, but be much less flashy to historians in decades (or centuries) to come. But W. and Obama will be long remembered. W. is going to go down as one of the absolute worst presidents in US history and his invasion into Iraq, bungling of following through after the 9/11 attack in pursuing the culprits, exploding deficits, public endorsement of torture, overseeing the 2008 crash, and generally ignoring civil liberties is going to gain him a slew of historical critics for a long time to come. And if the US does truly decline in the 21st century (I am not convinced by so many of the cynics and misanthropes out there), historians will trace the beginning back to his first term.

Obama is the first black president. That is a major historical point, especially considering the country's long history of racism, bigotry and slavery. In fact, the fact he was an infant during passage of the Civil Rights Act and King's "I have a dream speech" and became POTUS 40-something years later will also be a point of fascination with historians. As for Obama's record? It is way too early to judge how he will be remembered. If he is reelected and HCR (or "Obamacare") sticks, it will become a major aspect of American life like social security and Medicare. If it is repealed it will be a major piece of political history of a social service that Americans rejected. This program, allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden will be remembered. His handling of the economy? Well that will entirely depend on how it grows in the next few years. But, he could be very much like Harry Truman and George Bush Sr. in that they were far more praised decade(s) after leaving office than they were while in it.

Historians will remember Bush, Clinton and Obama, but the average person will probably not. Unless education dramatically improves (stranger things have happened).

Perhaps I am looking further down the road than most people (50-100 years). In the next fifty years this planet will very likely see a Third World War. At the very least we will see nuclear wars and possibly nuclear terrorism. Civil wars in world powers. Men will walk on Mars. The world will becoming increasingly multicultural, to the point that people will have little concept of race as we do today.

With all that coming, I don't see these people leaving much of a mark on history.

Though if you mean in the near future (10-20 years) then yes, I agree with what you said.

 

[Paradoxium]

Harharh it would be funny if he is remembered as "The son of that dude after Reagan".

 

[DACrowe]

Historians will remember Bush, Clinton and Obama, but the average person will probably not. Unless education dramatically improves (stranger things have happened).

Do you mean high school education? Well again, as Matt said, W. was a wartime president. They will talk about the war. He was also president after 9/11 and the president who oversaw the 2008 economic collapse. Those are all major historical events that he was president during and his responses to those (invading Iraq, torturing prisoners, etc.) or his role in leading up to the economic crash will gain him a lot of critics. Most people still remember Herbert Hoover was president during 1929 and, somewhat unfairly, blame him for the entire Great Depression. Most Americans know Roosevelt was president after Pearl Harbor and took us into WWII. Or, since Iraq will likely be viewed unfavorably, most Americans remember Vietnam and LBJ and Nixon's presidencies from that period.

As for Obama, I cannot stress enough how historic his mere election is. But if HCR sticks, it will be remembered like Social Security and Medicare that also elevate FDR and LBJ in history books. As Truman is remembered for ending racial segregation in the military, Obama will be remembered for ending a ban on gays. And as all wars and major national tragedies are remembered, Obama ending Iraq and getting the guy who planned 9/11 will also be remembered.

Perhaps I am looking further down the road than most people (50-100 years). In the next fifty years this planet will very likely see a Third World War. At the very least we will see nuclear wars and possibly nuclear terrorism. Civil wars in world powers. Men will walk on Mars. The world will becoming increasingly multicultural, to the point that people will have little concept of race as we do today.

With all that coming, I don't see these people leaving much of a mark on history.

Nuclear wars and nuclear terrorism? You mean the end of most civilization? Your cryptic visions haven't come to pass and if that does happen, then the US could be viewed as ancient history like the Romans in the Middle Ages. But, color me skeptical.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes. High school, assuming the system doesn't change. Well, I agree, 9/11 will likely be remembered, at least until something significantly worse happens. Which will hopefully not be for a while. It's natural for people to overestimate the significance of the time period they live in. Good luck getting the average joe to tell you who desegregated the US military. Actually, most people with a college education would know that. Hopefully.

Cryptic visions? I wish I lived in your reality. We live in time when a growing number of rogue states are acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea already has them, others are working on acquiring them as we speak. Proliferation of nuclear arms will inevitably lead to a nuclear conflict (most people agree it's a miracle we haven't had one yet, and that was when there were only a handful of nations who possessed them). Not necessarily one that will destroy the world, but it will certainly make some recent conflicts pale by comparison.

 

[hippie_hunter]

With that said I voted hoping for a Roosevelt and got more of a Truman. But, as before, I'm not one to yearn for more Clintonian policy right now.

There's a big difference between Obama and Truman. At least Truman knew how to do his job and wasn't in over his head. If I would compare Obama to other Presidents, I would compare him more to Kennedy or Carter.

 

[Matt]

I think that the Kennedy comparison is most apt. Carter was pure incompetence. Obama isn't incompetent. He's had some successes from a foreign policy perspective (I'd argue that killing Bin Laden is his Cuban Missile Crisis) but like Kennedy he is unable to work with Congress and therefore gets very little done on the homefront (and before someone says HCR, he barely passed a watered down version of his bill despite his party having control of both Congressional houses and said version seems to be heading towards a Supreme Court overturn). Like Kennedy he claims to be a transformational figure but in reality he is a puppet (Kennedy was Joe's puppet, Obama is a puppet of the Chicago machine). Furthermore as his handler Rahm Emmanuel left him, his political inexperience and ineptitude began to shine through (much as Kennedy's did when Joe had a stroke and could no longer advise him).

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think that the Kennedy comparison is most apt. Carter was pure incompetence. Obama isn't incompetent. He's had some successes from a foreign policy perspective (I'd argue that killing Bin Laden is his Cuban Missile Crisis) but like Kennedy he is unable to work with Congress and therefore gets very little done on the homefront (and before someone says HCR, he barely passed a watered down version of his bill despite his party having control of both Congressional houses and said version seems to be heading towards a Supreme Court overturn). Like Kennedy he claims to be a transformational figure but in reality he is a puppet (Kennedy was Joe's puppet, Obama is a puppet of the Chicago machine). Furthermore as his handler Rahm Emmanuel left him, his political inexperience and ineptitude began to shine through (much as Kennedy's did when Joe had a stroke and could no longer advise him).

Carter had some successes as well like the Camp David Accords. And a lot of Obama's actions reek of utter political incompetence like both Kennedy and Carter.

 

[DACrowe]

There's a big difference between Obama and Truman. At least Truman knew how to do his job and wasn't in over his head. If I would compare Obama to other Presidents, I would compare him more to Kennedy or Carter.

People called Truman incompetent when he was president. His opponents called him weak-willed, not politically savvy (he hated Washington), bemoaned his policies that would "destroy the military" like desegregating it, was barely reelected, and left office with a low approval rating. He is now generally considered one of our top 10 presidents.

You call Obama incompetent. I disagree. And, I imagine, so will history.

I think that the Kennedy comparison is most apt. Carter was pure incompetence. Obama isn't incompetent. He's had some successes from a foreign policy perspective (I'd argue that killing Bin Laden is his Cuban Missile Crisis) but like Kennedy he is unable to work with Congress and therefore gets very little done on the homefront (and before someone says HCR, he barely passed a watered down version of his bill despite his party having control of both Congressional houses and said version seems to be heading towards a Supreme Court overturn). Like Kennedy he claims to be a transformational figure but in reality he is a puppet (Kennedy was Joe's puppet, Obama is a puppet of the Chicago machine). Furthermore as his handler Rahm Emmanuel left him, his political inexperience and ineptitude began to shine through (much as Kennedy's did when Joe had a stroke and could no longer advise him).

If not HCR can I mention the New START Treaty, Student Loan Reform, Repealing DADT, and Dodd-Frank? Whatever you think of the last one's effectiveness, those were all major legislative achievements. Even if two of them came down to the lame duck session of 2010, history will remember they passed.

Again, Truman had his own Do-Nothing Congress. In fact, it got him reelected in the end. I understand the criticism of on Obama, but he literally can't do anything with the Tea Party House. Boehner has several times wanted to cut a deal and grand bargains with the president but cannot because of the fanaticism of his caucus. I honestly think history will not be as sweepingly condemning as people on this board are.

 

[hippie_hunter]

People called Truman incompetent when he was president. His opponents called him weak-willed, not politically savvy (he hated Washington), bemoaned his policies that would "destroy the military" like desegregating it, was barely reelected, and left office with a low approval rating. He is now generally considered one of our top 10 presidents.

You call Obama incompetent. I disagree. And, I imagine, so will history.

While we can certainly debate about Obama's actual competence (until his Presidency is over it's all a matter of opinion), but in terms of political skill, he's flat out incompetent. He's in over his head in that regard.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Yes. High school, assuming the system doesn't change. Well, I agree, 9/11 will likely be remembered, at least until something significantly worse happens. Which will hopefully not be for a while. It's natural for people to overestimate the significance of the time period they live in. Good luck getting the average joe to tell you who desegregated the US military. Actually, most people with a college education would know that. Hopefully.

Cryptic visions? I wish I lived in your reality. We live in time when a growing number of rogue states are acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea already has them, others are working on acquiring them as we speak. Proliferation of nuclear arms will inevitably lead to a nuclear conflict (most people agree it's a miracle we haven't had one yet, and that was when there were only a handful of nations who possessed them). Not necessarily one that will destroy the world, but it will certainly make some recent conflicts pale by comparison.

When does the race of hyper intelligent insects take over? Cause I'm thinking 100 years after the third nuclear war happens people will forget about what bombs are because of the bug invasion. Also can I get some of what you're smoking?

The first black president is a HUGE deal especially as an US president. This will be not just in history books but covering Social Scientists for the rest of human history. It's that big a deal, don't mistake it people will be using examples of this to prove overcoming zenophobias, racism and prejudice for as long as those issues exist, meaning forever.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Again, Truman had his own Do-Nothing Congress. In fact, it got him reelected in the end. I understand the criticism of on Obama, but he literally can't do anything with the Tea Party House. Boehner has several times wanted to cut a deal and grand bargains with the president but cannot because of the fanaticism of his caucus. I honestly think history will not be as sweepingly condemning as people on this board are.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that you are really over emphasizing on the Do-Nothing Congress. I think that Truman's victory in 1948 had more to do with how Dewey ran his campaign than Truman running on a Do-Nothing Congress.

You see, when Dewey ran for President in 1944, he felt that Roosevelt managed to get him into a hyper-partisan mudslinging match that cost him votes. So in 1948 when he went up against Truman, he played an absurdly cautious campaign that had no substance at all to avoid offending anyone. He was vague about what he would do as President, avoided all controversial issues, and everything he said was utterly meaningless. He refused to engage Truman, he refused to go negative, and he refused to answer Truman's accusations and criticisms. To quote the Louisville Courier-Journal:

"No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead."

Truman had so much going against him with absurdly low approval ratings, a high misery index (high unemployment, inflation, etc.), no money, and the States Rights Democratic and Progressive Parties splitting the Democratic vote, that if Dewey were actually willing to engage and put out actual substance, he would have won Illinois, California, and Ohio for sure (which would have put him 3 electoral votes short of victory) and probably would have won a couple of other swing states like Iowa, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, and Wisconsin (just winning one of those states would have guaranteed him victory).

While you may compare Barack Obama to Harry Truman, Mitt Romney is no Thomas Dewey.

Another thing that Truman had going for him was the fact that Truman accepted accountability. He accepted the fact that a lot of the decisions he made and what went wrong fell on him to a certain degree. People respect that. This was something that even Jimmy Carter believed in. Barack Obama on the other hand, does not accept accountability. Everything that has went wrong under his administration is either George W. Bush's fault or Congress' fault. While the blame game can work to a certain degree, most voters don't fall for the "Blame Bush" card anymore and most voters in swing states are most likely not going to fall for the "Blame Congress" card. The only people who are going to fall for the "Blame Congress" card are hyper partisan voters and in that regard Republican voters will blame the Democrats and Obama for Congress getting little done and Democrats will blame the Republicans for Congress' ineptitude.

 

[Thundercrack85]

When does the race of hyper intelligent insects take over? Cause I'm thinking 100 years after the third nuclear war happens people will forget about what bombs are because of the bug invasion. Also can I get some of what you're smoking?

The first black president is a HUGE deal especially as an US president. This will be not just in history books but covering Social Scientists for the rest of human history. It's that big a deal, don't mistake it people will be using examples of this to prove overcoming zenophobias, racism and prejudice for as long as those issues exist, meaning forever.

Funny. When rogue states around the world start building an army of hyper intelligent insects, let me know.

And really? In the grand scheme of things? One North American state in the early 21st century elects a half black man president and that's going to be covered for the rest of human history? What does the first female president get? Her own Mount Rushmore? Do you know the name of the first black Roman Emperor? Take some history classes, get some perspective.

It's one thing to say that America electing a biracial president is a big deal in recent history, given its racist history. But in the entirety of human history? Even if you're a young Earth creationist, that's silly.

 

[Dr. Evil]

God I hope this is accurate. I would love to say goodbye and good riddance to this self centered moron.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012...s_she_won_t_return_as_secretary_of_state.html

Hillary Clinton suggested Thursday that she has no plans to stay on as secretary of state, even if President Obama wins re-election this November, and likewise is ready to bring her lengthy and historic career in politics to an end.

USA Today reports the former first lady and U.S. senator told a town hall for State Department employees on Thursday that she would "certainly" stay on until Obama would be able to nominate her replacement, but that "after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would probably be a good idea to just find out how tired I am."

Still, she did appear to hint at the possibility that her political career could have at least one more act, drawing laughs from the crowd by telling them that "everyone always says that when they leave these jobs."
A few political observers have floated the idea that Clinton should challenge Obama in the primary this year, while others—like the New York Times's Bill Keller—have suggested that Obama should move Vice President Joe Biden over to the State Department and replace him with Clinton on the 2012 Democratic ticket. Clinton and her adviser have repeatedly shot down such speculation, as have many other Democratic insiders.

Susan Rice will replace her if Obama is re-elected.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Funny. When rogue states around the world start building an army of hyper intelligent insects, let me know.

And really? In the grand scheme of things? One North American state in the early 21st century elects a half black man president and that's going to be covered for the rest of human history? What does the first female president get? Her own Mount Rushmore? Do you know the name of the first black Roman Emperor? Take some history classes, get some perspective.

It's one thing to say that America electing a biracial president is a big deal in recent history, given its racist history. But in the entirety of human history? Even if you're a young Earth creationist, that's silly.

They already are, they already are.

Yes in the grand scheme of things, absolutely, definitely and without a doubt. It's the first time in the history of history that the current world power freely elected someone of a different color than the nation's founders. If you don't think that's a big deal in terms of social developments, and new social norms then I just don't know.

Women have already been rulers of nations, that's old hat.

You're not getting it. It isn't that the US has a racist history it's that EVERYONE has a racist history though out the whole of time. So when the biggest world power and leader freely chooses someone that's not one of the races of their founders (a race that's still in power I should add) that says a lot. You just don't see the scope of what that means not just for the US but for the world as a whole. Doors have been broken or at least cracked that have never been before.

 

[Thundercrack85]

They already are, they already are.

Yes in the grand scheme of things, absolutely, definitely and without a doubt. It's the first time in the history of history that the current world power freely elected someone of a different color than the nation's founders. If you don't think that's a big deal in terms of social developments, and new social norms then I just don't know.

Women have already been rulers of nations, that's old hat.

You're not getting it. It isn't that the US has a racist history it's that EVERYONE has a racist history though out the whole of time. So when the biggest world power and leader freely chooses someone that's not one of the races of their founders (a race that's still in power I should add) that says a lot. You just don't see the scope of what that means not just for the US but for the world as a whole. Doors have been broken or at least cracked that have never been before.

I have a harder time seeing the United States elect a woman president than a non-white man. And thus far I am right. But, that's another matter... actually appropriate for this thread.

But the concept of race as we know it is relatively new. The Romans had several "minority" leaders, including Africans. Though I guess you could debate how "free" those elections were, since only a few people could vote. So did the Egyptians in their prime... though that certainly wasn't democratic.

It's a big deal for modern history, I'll give you that. But, no, I don't see this as some species changing event. That's great rhetoric for selling commemorative plates and those quarters with Obama stickers on them, but history disagrees.

 

[hippie_hunter]

While you may compare Barack Obama to Harry Truman, Mitt Romney is no Thomas Dewey.

Mitt Romney's Florida victory speech pretty much proves the point that Romney is no Thomas Dewey. Whether or not you agree with him, he's at least providing an alternative and is engaging Barack Obama. The exact opposite of Truman's opponent back in 1948. If enough people are still tired of Obama come November, voters have an alternative to go to as opposed to 1948 where Dewey failed to be that alternative.