CNN reporting that Bill Clinton will address the Senate tomorrow

:eyes:

I wouldnt be so quickly to poohpooh this if I were you.

Good point.

But I still don't know what Clinton can do. If people are against it, they're against it. We will see what happens.

Noted.

:crazy:

but thanks.

Because he's more popular. Back in 1994, he was still very divisive and the Republicans hated him. Democrats cowered and caved because of it.

LOL!

Bring out the Big Dog. :)

woot.

We'll see.

:kick: :patriot:

he turned me into his biggest fan after hearing him speak in 1980. :hi:

But you know that I'd follow Jimmy Carter anywhere! :patriot::hi:

I do give him credit for being able to persuade Democratic legislators to vote for things they were skeptical about like NAFTA, welfare reform and DOMA.

And I never said that Bill Clinton was perfect. He's a centrist, while I am not. But I heard him speak to an SRO crowd here in my historically red district and he was a rock star. Anyone who heard him would have followed him anywhere. :-)

Pulling out the bigger guns to wipe Repukes of the news feeds. Genius!

:D

"triangulation" business doesn't fill me with much in the way of expectations.

Or is this something we complain about when it is expedient?

Kudos to Bill, but Bill didn't have that many assholes in the Senate when he was President as we do now.

Clinton had a Senate majority of 56, with such conservative Democrats as Bennett Johnston and John Breaux (Louisiana), Richard Shelby and Howell Heflin (Alabama), Sam Nunn (Georgia), Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (South Carolina), David Boren (Oklahoma), Dennis DeConcini (Arizona), and James Exon (Nebraska)--besides the awful damn shitty Joe Lieberman.

have moved to Republicans who make many of these people look good. In LA, is Landrieau any better than Breaux?

Obama's conservatives are mainly in seats we won from the Republicans. I suspect that if you look at both Republicans and Democrats, the shift was to the right. You ignore that Clinton's Republicans included Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter. The biggest movement in the Senate was in where the Republican party is. There are many Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s, that would fit as moderate Democrats or even Liberals now. That shift had already started before Clinton, but there was a huge shift in Bush years.

Sorry, but there is no reasonable standard that can argue that the Senate is more conservative today. Baucus, Lieberman and Conrad were all there at the time. Bob Kerry took a very conservative position, somewhat like Ben Nelson's stance today. Landrieau is a little better then Breaux and Johnson. Shelby was basically a Republican. Bob Packwood was dependent on Dole for survival and rendered useless. Specter led the fight against the bill, never even considering the employer mandate. D'amato was not a moderate, not on any major issue. Chafee and Jeffords were the Snowe and Collins of there time--but even they voted against the Clinton budget and stimulus plan. On top of all that, you had Sam Nunn, Dave Boren and the rest of the Reagan Dems. Kay Hagan and Mark Warner are definitely more liberal--and there are fewer of them.

Most importantly, the rampant use of the filibuster was new back then--Senators weren't as prepared to do something through reconciliation, something they likely will have to do this time around if they want to get a bill passed.

Sorry, but John Kerry and Barack Obama wouldn't have done any better back then. This isn't about comparative leadership skills--it's about the time and the numbers, and both are more favorable today.

Steve

I had in mind that Obama's Senate majority depends less on the Deep South and other hardcore conservative states, than Clinton's. One state whose Democratic Senate delegation has moved right, is Arkansas. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln are more conservative, and less a help to Obama, than David Pryor and Dale Bumpers, mostly reliable liberals, were to Bubba. West Virginia's also moved right, but Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller have the standing in their state to remain themselves. Specter was actually a tough opponent of Clinton health reform efforts. I think the greater tractability of Senate Republicans 1993-95 can be exaggerated; they had successfully filibustered Clinton's 1993 stimulus plan. and unanimously opposed his tax and budget plan. Bob Dole was also key in uniting Republicans in opposition to healthcare reform--attributed by many to his 1996 presidential ambitions.

.... the BIG DAWG is going to go work on the BLUE DOGS that he gave birth to.

You have to look at who left and who came in. While it is true that Clinton had more Southern Democrats, many of whom did not retire until as late as 2004, Obama has many new Senators, from conservative areas, who replaced Republicans. The Southern Democrats were replaced by Republicans.

We picked up seats in blue areas held before that by moderate Republicans (like VT, IL and RI) and we got conservative Democrats, who won in swing states or even red states. ( PA (Casey for Santorum - and Specter moving to the left), Missouri (McGaskill is far better than Talent), VA (Webb for Allen), MT (Tester for Burns) etc The latter group were huge wins for us, but for the most part these are Democrats who are more conservative than the Democrats they joined.

If you tallied the number of conservative Democrats in 1994 and 2009, it would depend on your definition as to which one has the higher number of Conservadems.

However, what is incontestable is that Clinton had far more moderate or at least reachable Republicans. Jeffords, Specter, and Chaffee who were possible votes on most issues. In addition, there were Senators like D'Amato, who bad as they were are not the RW Republicans of today.

Are you suddenly for the bill?


:rofl:

behind closed doors.

He made worse deals than your imaginary PhRMA deal, but here you are cheering him on as he's going to make the case for a bill you've been ridiculing for months.

It is an egregious assault on women's reproductive rights.

n/t

Bernie Sanders said that he will fight for a strong public option.

... sure .... you go right on thinking that. ;)

from dennis?

Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc are all working together to get history made.. kucinich and the club for stagnation are left whining in the wings.

Put the pom poms down. You might hurt yourself.

And passed DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, cheered on Bush's Iraq war from the sidelines early on (and then lied about it), fucked an intern with a cigar in the Oval Office (and then lied about it), deregulated the media and "reformed" welfare to GOP satisfaction, fucked up Somalia, didn't catch bin Laden when he had a clear shot, began the practice of extraordinary rendition, is the DLC's biggest success and put to death a retarded man so he could say he was "tough on crime".

Yeah, he's a real hero to the masses.

blatantly false but you fell for it like a ton of bricks.

Forgive us if we're a bit selective.

They can lose their seats and still be rich.

ya gotta do this. Work it.

A guy can dream, right?

:rofl:

.... him walking through the Halls of Congress to that theme song?

:toast:

Sounds great!

No doubt President Obama asked him to do it.

It's nice to see the former President doing what he can to get this passed as he failed the first time around.

Makes me proud of our party.

If their real concern is losing their seat. Gore could speak of the pride he feels in his father, who voted for the Civil Rights Act, knowing that it would very likely cost him what otherwise was a very safe seat.

I would bet that vote for Civil Rights accomplished more to push the country forward than anything Gore, Sr could have done with another 6 years in the Senate. Here, there choice may be like Gore's, to vote for landmark legislation that they always will deserve credit and praise for or to maybe be reelected for another 6 years. They might be able to accumulate a lot of years, but if they never take a brave, deciding vote, what good have they done? (Not to mention, unlike civil rights in TN, they can aggressively campaign on healthcare finding people in their state who will be helped by it.)

I'm hoping he's going to unleash some form of LBJ-style coercion on the conservative wing to get them in line.

Go get them, Bill!!

:D

Oh my!

:rofl:

:shrug:

"I love you Bill - I hope you do well, but I don't want this bill to be passed and be chalked up as a success for the President!"

:crazy:

voice of experience and all, right?

;-)

It's good that he's working with the President. The Big Dawg should be able to speak Blue Dog quite well.

;)