We need to admit that it wasn't the Clintons who were divisive, it is crazy Americans fueling this.

Yesterday Paul Krugman reminded us that preferring Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton because you wanted to avoid the Clinton psychodrama of the 90s was always a vain hope. Back in early 2008 he wrote, "Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false." Ezra Klein, chatting online about town hall hysteria, added, "This is how the conservative movement organizes against major pieces of liberal legislation. It's not about a particular moment or leader."

This is unquestionably true, but I'd just like to add one thing. If Hillary Clinton had won last year's Democratic primary and gone on to become president, and then this year's town hall meeting had turned into insane gatherings of lunatics yelling about death panels, every single pundit in Washington — Every. Single. One. — would be blaming it on her. Their unanimous take would be: Democrats knew that she was a divisive figure and chose to put her in the White House anyway. It's hardly any wonder that conservatives have gone nuts, is it?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/hillary-narrative

AND we need to keep reminding everyone (even the media Rachel?), this is not about us, it is about them. They did it to Clinton now they are doing it to Obama. And of course it goes back further. Republicans refused to address FDR as "President" and instead referred to him as "that man in the White House" throughout his term. Also, remember how Carter was eaten alive by the crazies.

Sure, there were anti Bush people but we didn't impeach him and we were not even allowed into his town hall meetings.

There is a 27% crazification factor in the US and the media should stop giving them air time.

The problem is the refusal of the far right in this country to abide by the outcome of elections, and its resolve to do all in its power to render the country ungovernable when it does not itself control the government.

HOW TO HATE

and the Repos had opted to disrupt as a political strategy, then the media would have blamed it on Clinton's "innate divisiveness."

The part that you are wrong about is that both Hillary and Obama actually did bring most of this on themselves by not actually promoting the truly liberal idea of a single payer health care system. They both choose to go with fadish new unproven market driven Republican ideas as a means to reform health care.

So both end up being attacked by the right who see any victory for Dems as a major loss for the Repos, and at the same time millions of Americans are not that eager to get out and defend the Republican market driven ideas being promoted by supposed Democrats.

You must remember. In the mid terms of 1994, the Repo turn out was about identical to the Repo turn out in 1990, the previous mid term. So Repos didn't get anymore voters to the polls. The Dem turnout in 1994 on the other hand, was far lower than the Dem turnout in 1990.

It's hard to motivate Dems to get out there and vote for Republican policies, and many just stayed home. They felt betrayed by NAFTA, by health care reform that was pushed by and protected a few of the vary largest insurance companies, by Repo driven and defined welfare reform.

It's much easier to fight back against a lot of bullshit when you have your supporters behind you. Both Hillary and Obama seem to take their most passionate supports for granted and instead attempt to court the right for support. Big mistake.

to Cspan cameras as he said during the campaign.

I'm a staunch supporter of Obama and wish him to succeed and think he made a grave misjudgment by not using his persuasiveness and bully pulpit early on to attain the transparency of congress' legislative negotiations.....transparency that HE noted was needed for these big debates when he was running.


Let the public see who is carrying water for them and who is carrying it for their corporate masters.

single payer will never work here.

It's why Dennis is not prez

programs like the socialistic Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats held one or both houses of congress for almost 50 years.


So these things do NOT happen to Dems no matter what. In fact it's an indication of just how far to the right Clinton drug our party that you would even think these things happen to Dems all the time. I'm not sure why you consider yourself a student of history. You sound like a sophomore getting ready to return to classes.

Social Security is a single payer retirement system. Bush wanted it to go "public option. That is he wanted the public to have the option to privatize part of the public system. It was just as bad an idea for Social Security as it is for American's health security.

The FDIC is a single payer system that was just doubled in size during the bush administration. The Federal Government runs this single payer bank deposit insurance pool, and it works quite well. You should read up on it, "student of history."


Romney isn't prez but his Romney Care looks like it might be what we are in for. In which case, i predict Dems will stay home in droves in 2010 just as they did in 1994. Dr Dean predicts that also, that if we are left with what is essentially Romney care that we will take a beating in 2010. He made his remarks at the Netroots conference yesterday.

Yesterday he also admitted that it was a mistake to banish single payer from the debate.

I think he's right and you are wrong.

by the mainstream media that certain things about past Presidents are okay to bring up and discuss when they clearly are not. FDR, JFK, Johnson were all in a different era. This was way before the fringe was allowed to have a mainstream voice. Now I do think FDR and Johnson are more liberal then Obama or Clinton but there are several factors at play and the media is one of them.

I agree that in a more diversified media environment people get a more diversified message. But that's why we have the internet.

And it was that right wing march of Clinton that resulted in his signing the telecommunications act which of course means that broadcast media is far more monolithic today than it was prior to Clinton.

My main point is still valid i think.

People vote for Democrats when they pass Democratic legislation.

People could care less about voting for Democrats who pass Repo legislation.

Courting their base to the detriment of the entire party? They are sinking like a stone and looking more crazy by the minute. You think this would work better for dems than it is working for the pukes?

The real problem is our two party sytem. If we continue to travel the two party path we are destined to fail. There is no room for true discusion when your future depends on the other guy losing.

defeated.

So it would behoove the Dems to promote a policy that actually helps the most people and is sustainable.

Giving the insurance industry a trillion a decade isn't good government policy and it isn't sustainable. It's crony capitalism that won't fix the funding problems for health care in the long run.

I stand by my decision to back Obama, but I will admit to being wrong that Obama would somehow make the Right less batshit insane than Hillary.

is batshit crazy. I wanted Pres Obama for a lot of other reasons.

I think Klein's comments most telling...and honest.

but I most definitely agree with this.

Confirmed suspicions of ineptness in the GOP by their evidence of failures

It was the pukes. :(

in a lot of the "protests" towards Obama on multiple issues. Denying that serves no purpose and only makes the deniers look naive and foolish.

Happy to rec.

I remember ppl saying "he wasn't one of the villagers" which is why he was impeached. That is why the villagers went along but it was the crazies that impeached him.

Though I haven't been a HRC fan, I think you are right.

I was watching his CO town hall, and it was good, but my fear that at moments it was too wonky. I was thinking how Obama could benefit from Clinton's style, his gift for making complex things less so. But the main point is that now everybody knows anybody who tries to change things meets profound opposition, lets keep out side united, use the many diverse voices to make the best choices.

But because of racism the crazies are more in number.