• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Time
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Time
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Time
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Time
    Propertius on Time
    Propertius on Time
    William on Time
    Propertius on Time
    Propertius on Time
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Time
    Peg on Time
    William on Time
    Seagrl on Time
    riverdaughter on Time
    centaur on Time
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    August 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul   Sep »
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • You remember Ginni Thomas
      Her Groundswell group of right-wing extremist nut jobs are happy as pigs in shit since they have Trump’s ear:
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Preparing For The Coronavirus
      I haven’t written about this because others have been dealing with it well and pandemics aren’t something I know a great deal about. It does look, now, like the Coronavirus stands a good chance of turning into a pandemic, and I think we should discuss preparation a bit. Our world produces most goods in a […]
  • Top Posts

Post Debate Wrap Up: dissing Obama and Clorox.

The Twitter is all aflutter today that some of the debate candidates dared to criticize Obama. Nick Confessore gets a clue when he says that Obama’s presidency took the air out of a newly resurgent left.

Yes. It was intentional. We tried to warn people but they just wouldn’t listen when he was acting like the tofu candidate, absorbing the sauce of whatever political faction was admiring him at the time.

Would Clinton have done better? She was to the left of Obama on votes in the Senate. I think she would have faced very strong headwinds in office. But I don’t think she would have let herself get rolled like Obama. And she had more solid plans to rescue underwater homeowners, something Obama didn’t seem to care about. In other words, the bankers would have had more trouble getting their way with her.

I think she might have handled healthcare differently too. The ACA has too many compromises and was almost set up in a bipartisan way to piss off the working class. But we’ll never know how she would have done now. One thing I did notice about her candidacy in 2016. There was a sort of resignation about her policies compared to 2008. It’s like the cake was baked and there wasn’t a whole lot left to work with. We gave the treasury to the finance guys and we put in place a really lousy healthcare system that she would be forced to defend if she had no house in congress on her side. Sucked to be her.

Sucks even more to be us with the big orange in the Oval Office. But Gillibrand has a plan for that:

Ramen to that. Bleach might not be enough. We will probably need shamans and sage to purify the rooms and banish all of the Dark Psychic Forces.

So, what were your impressions of Debate night 2?

13 Responses

  1. Completely agree with all your Obama comments. The Republican party had to be thrilled with the Obama vs the potential Clinton presidency. They simply rolled over Obama, and convinced the American people that Obama was a lefty. Was Obama a better president than his predecessor… of course. Was he a better president than his successor has been… also true. Will Obama go done as a great president… not in my book.

    The funny thing is he told us this is what he would be before he even got the nomination. Tofu indeed.

  2. That debate was so badly or insidiously set up by CNN, that every question was almost a demand for the respondent to attack the candidate who criticized them. “Senator Harris, VP Biden has said that you keep changing your health care plans. What do you say?” So of course Harris has to attack Biden, and he has to attack her, and the moderators are sated. The somewhat amusing thing was that the candidates were so anxious to attack Biden, that they had to attack Obama via connection. The whole bunch of them came off looking petty, except for Inslee, Gillibrand Yang and Bennett, who didn’t attack, just set out their one or two issues. It was such a bad look, and I blame the candidates, but mostly the moderators’ questions.

    I certainly have agreed with you about Obama, from start to finish. And I can never forgive him for not fighting for Garland, and for not telling McConnnell to stuff himself when he threatened to call partisanship if Obama warned the country about Russian interference in the election. And I was upset when some poll of historians right after Obama left office had him in the top ten presidents (along with Reagan), with Clinton only 15 or so. He has been overrated throughout, but of course was better than his bookend presidents. The problem is that going forward, Democrats need to remind people why their party is so much better than the Republicans at running the country. By attacking their last President, and studiously avoiding the very successful regime of Bill Clinton, they are garrotting themselves, and very possibly allowing the Republicans to keep claiming that the Democrats are failures and incapable of running the country. Apparently Booker and Castro and De Blasio are too opportunistic or stupid to figure this out.

    I saw Debbie Dingell on TV this morning, and I don’t know much about her; but she was asked what she thought about the debates from the perspective of turning around the state of Michigan. And she said that she talks to many people at events, and they are well aware of what is bad about Trump, but they want to know what the Democrats would do to improve their situations. Now, that seems rather foolish, because it should be obvious. But when our candidates keep focusing on their pet issue, like ” criminal justice reform,” or “immigration,” and blame their own party leaders for causing or aggravating the problem, this does not help us. Somehow most of our candidates think that they alone have the superior approach, one that has never been thought of before. Bill and Hillary had a health care plan which was far better than ACA, or whatever they are trying to come up with now, but they did not get enough support from Democrats, and the media wanted to see them be embarrassed, so gleefully joined in.

    And now lesser lights are fighting among themselves about their plans, and how new and inventive they are. In the old days, Democrats always went back to FDR and the New Deal as their guiding lights. My father told me how the Democrats were pretty certain that they would lose in 1948, but then VP nominee Alben Barkley got up at the convention, and gave a rousing speech which reminded them and the country how much FDR did for America, and why they didn’t want to go back to a Republican President; and how that gave the Democrats new hope and resolve. If our candidates want to disavow both Clintons for some ridiculous reasons, that only leaves us with Obama as a rather flimsy guidepost to hold up.

  3. As usual, William, you speak for me, hard as it is to face up to what you are saying. But it is true.

  4. What particular caught my eye during the debate was Tulsi Gabbard focused her attacks specifically on Harris re her record as CA AG. Her picking out Harris for the most harsh criticism sent up red flags for me. Could Gabbard be the candidate that the Russian propaganda machine supports in order to help take Harris out of the race or at least undermine her credibility and record? After what was done to Hillary by the Russian bots, I will not take anything that Gabbard or any of the candidates say about Harris, Warren or Gillibrand to heart without first fact checking their accusations myself.

    The “Black Women Views” came forth and asserted that “not enough ink has been written about Harris’ record as AG…” I recommend everyone read how they laid out her record. Surely, it’s highly feasible that any candidate who could seriously threaten trump in the general is going to be lied about and attacked ad nauseum between now and election day through a biased media and the Russian propaganda machine. Following is the link that lays out Harris’ record and shows the exceptional accomplishments she made. A far cry from what Gabbard was saying about her:


    I have no doubt had Buttegieg, Booker, Castro or any of the men running had made such positive changes for their respective states, the media would have already started talking about it on a regular basis.

    The big question is why hasn’t the media taken the time to check Kamala’s record, instead of relying on Tulsi Gabbard for that information?

    • I think the highly efficient Russian disinformation machine has decided that Bernie’s time has passed, and they’ve got a new spoiler. Tulsi is it.

      I’ve seen numerous Twitter accounts noting that Gabbard’s “fans” are flooding their mentions with attacks on the women front runners, most notably Harris right now. It would be really nice if that open-source network that exposed the GRU in 2016 got to work on this.

      Also, beautiful post, RD. Very effective use of one of one of the best speeches of all time.

      • Dang, where’s that edit function when you need it? I should have posted that last comment under your -next- post, RD.

  5. The most diverse of presidential candidates in the history of our country and what do you know…it was a “brawl”. Disheartening…

    In the beginning it was all “hombre to hombre”, since most time was given to the male gender.
    But wait, the ladies decided to join the mud wrestling to show some mojo.

    From the Peanut Gallery my support goes to Gillibrand.

    Of course, for her commitment to clean all the nasty feces of the current occupants at the White House; which brought a lighter tone to the debate (?). But mostly, for her commitment to take climate change as the number one priority.

    By quoting JFK (OK recycling) in the quest to go to the moon: “not because it is easy, but because it is hard”; she touched not just inspirational goals but realistic invitation for world wide competition to undo our own excesses.
    After all, we have gone to the moon…and come back…many times…
    “Yes, we can do this”. She said.

    I hope Gillibrand and Williamson stay on the debates.

  6. bellecat,

    The moderators made deliberate efforts to trap the candidates into attacking each other by the kinds of questions they asked. The CNN moderators were probably directed to do this by the top execs because it would increase ratings to start a food fight amongst the candidates. A prime reason we should not depend on the media to do the job they were meant to do by the Founders in keeping the American people informed and doing so truthfully.

    On the Lawrence O’Donnell show tonight, he featured Amy Klobuchar because she was the only candidate in the debate who refused to take the bait and attack her fellow democrats despite the efforts of the moderators to get her to do so. She spent her time going after trump, which is exactly what the dems should be doing every dim damn day.

    She also flew back to Washington after the debate in order to deliver a speech on the Senate floor admonishing “Moscow Mitch” for doing everything he could to stop any legislation from being voted on which would protect our elections. Amy said she would be telling the story about Mitch’s refusal to protect our elections every where she goes until such legislation is passed.

    She’s definitely a quiet force and I hope more pundits will highlight Amy’s dedication to the American people by the way she has not sold out to get that “viral” moment which most candidates fall for every time.

    • In my opinion, Klobuchar would likely make the best President out of the the entire group of candidates, due to her knowledge of policy issues, and pragmatism. To me, she is sort of a lesser version of Hillary, but superior to those who keep talking about plans which can never be passed unless we had 60 cloture votes in the Senate. But for whatever reasons, probably the need of media and some impressionable voters to gravitate to someone who is “exciting,” she is fighting just to get to 2% to be eligible for the next debate.

      The disquieting part of today’s post-debate poll is that Sanders is second. Probably the fact that no one in his debate field criticized him, was helpful to him. Somewhat like Hillary treated him with kid gloves because she did not want to anger his irrational corps of supporters, the current candidates are treating him like some sort of grey eminence worthy of respect, instead of someone who would better fit standing on a box in Hyde Park, ranting about vague revolutionary concepts. “I wrote the damn bill” seemed to impress some people who do not understand how government works. No one seems to ever ask him how he is planning to get the money to pay for his plans, including free college tuition for all. It is such an obvious question, too. Last time, he just kept saying. “We’re going to have a revolution.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: