The Big Dog, the Greatest. President. Ever., has spoken:
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”
Who’s right? Well, since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.
It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.
Clinton was too modest to admit that he was in office when 23 million of those jobs were created– nearly matching the entire Republican army of Presidents– and as such is overseer of the single biggest economic engine since World War II. And if you exclude jobs created due to World War II, he is by far the president who oversaw the creation of the most jobs in American history.
Period. Eight years of relative peace and undeniable prosperity for all. And he did it by raising taxes on the wealthy.
Ronald Reagan was called the Great Communicator, but never once did he ever have to seriously defend his abysmal economic record for the middle class. Indeed, very quietly in his second term, Reagan instituted the greatest tax hike on the American people since the income tax was instituted, and still barely created jobs. Unemployment under Reagan’s tax schemes still averaged 7.5%, not much lower than Barack Obama’s rate, and Reagan almost single-handedly created the homeless population of America. This, despite sending American troops overseas nearly continuously.
Epic. Fail.
Back to Clinton’s speech: it had nearly everything you’d wish Barack Obama could say, and indeed may have been written with an eye towards the freedom an ex-President– one who has established his bona fides as someone who has disagreements with the current Oval Office– has to comment on the “loyal” opposition. This paragraph in particular stands out:
Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats.
Coming from a man who was disgraced by the same party that now terrorizes the American people, forced to defend his personal life time and time again from the idiocracy inherent on the right wing, to say that even he can empathize and love his enemies is a powerful statement that will resonate with the American people.
After all, it was only 15 years ago. We ain’t that dumb. It was a noble and gracious sentiment and yet still stabbed at the heart of the Teabaggers in ways no other Democrat could.
Clinton dismantled the economic “policy” that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have both signed onto, and countered that cronies were more important to Romney and Republicans than jobs.
But this, this I think was Clinton’s strongest argument of the night:
No president”” not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you’ll renew the President’s contract you will feel it.
President Obama inherited an economy teetering on the precipice of another Great Depression. We, as a people, won’t credit him with saving it from disaster because the only way we could is if the disaster actually happened, the tape rewound, and the President steps in to save us in re-runs.
But Clinton laid out the case magnificently, using arithmetic and logic, and laid it out in language that the average person watching in his living room could understand.
It’s a talent he has. It’s a talent I can only aspire to as I write these pitiful little blogposts to you, my readers.
And now for a couple of side notes:
1) Tonight, President Obama will accept the party nomination for President. Last night, the last Democratic President was trotted out for a barnburner of a speech, but where was his wife?
She was in East Timor. Under the guise of “the Secretary of State should not attend political conventions,” because, you know, politics stop at our shores. Right?
It would not surprise me, however, if Madam Secretary has an August surprise up her sleeve to bring home tonight, just ahead of the evening news cycle.
2) I would be remiss if I didn’t not mention the speech given by Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate from Massachussetts. Between her and the Big Dog, it was a wonky night, but a wonky night that was easily digestible by anyone who sat in front of a television and paid attention. She’s a gifted explainer and I am sure that Massachussetts recognizes “smaht” when they see it.
3) Michelle Obama Tuesday night. Bill Clinton Wednesday night. They have stirred the convention, the national media and the electorate into a rhetorical frenzy. Either this convention has been one of the best choreographed conventions to re-introduce a President to his people, and Barack Obama has the greatest speech of his life in him (not an easy task, given how many great ones he has given), or the convention fizzles tonight. Either way, it will make for great television.
The people in the hall in Tampa stood and cheered. For the Dems, the people at home have stood and cheered right along with the delegates.
Game over.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/breaking-bill-clinton-finally-just-shows-america-h,29453/
I don’t honestly remember the last time I’d seen him like that, hair on fire, pounding home his points simply and so easily understood..
It’s been a long time, dawg……
“It’s no longer IOKIYAR….It’s OK If You’re A Republican, but IOKBYAR–It’s OK BECAUSE You’re a Republican.” — Me
watch out, that dude can speechify your socks off! I was more impressed with the straight forward honesty of Elizabeth Warren, but Clinton is, well, Clinton!
If only their damn policies were half as strong and disciplined as their speeches. Easy on the ears but they’ve been tough on the supporters in between. They definitely painted a good contrast from the extreme negativity coming out of Tampa.
You might be right, last night may have put 2012 in the bag for Dems.
Here.
Also: “greatest president ever”, really? Not Washington, FDR or Lincoln? Really, really?
Harumph.
He was a foreign policy mess and ruined the once-in-a-generation chance to actually reduce the Pentagon to a realistic Department of Defense. His neoliberal economic policies also lost Russia. Plus there’s those 500,000 Iraqi children that he didn’t mind letting die.
But whatever, welfare reform, banking deregulation, free trade, no movement on climate change mitigation … and now we hear the cold truth about big business and big government working together in his dream scenario.
The man happened to hold center stage as the American Empire transitioned from production to financialization, when the short-term economic benefits of that were rolling in heavily and he helped accelerate the transition. He didn’t create the tech boom/bubble that was such a strong driver during his administration, though he can get credit for sending the neo-liberals to Russia and helping to pillage a large economy that got liquidated and siphoned off into Western markets.
He moved the Democratic Party to the center-right.
Let me guess, Actor, you’re a Boomer. It seems that Boomers think Clinton was the best (or the worst) and my theory is that he gets the credit he does because A. he signaled the Boomers moving into full power and B. the 90′s were such a Boomer navel-gazing decade that none of you even noticed the signposts of imperial future or the havoc those economic policies fattening your 401K were doing around the world.
Short, to the point, entirely accurate.
in a morass of glib, High Broderist affectation was the especially asinine non-seq Lewinsky reference at the end in response to Clinton’s, er, verbatim quote of Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.
Or, shorter, what Beutler said:
This is why Villagers can’t have nice things (and why MWO was born — RIP, oh faithful steed).
(Also, this.)
Factcheck.org: “[W]ith few exceptions, we found [Clinton's] stats checked out.”
Apparently Politifact also failed to properly take the Clenis into account in its recap, narrowly focusing on ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ rather than blow jobs.
Clearly Apuzzo has much to teach re: factchecking AP style.
was stoked by selling off America’s seed corn. Just like Bush The Lesser reaped the real estate bubble while Obama inherited the aftermath, Clinton reaped the dotcom bubble and Lesser got the leftovers. It was a phony boom, with real productive jobs and real productive assets leaching away the whole time.
The real economic miracle of the Eisenhower years had its externalities and unwanted side effects, too, but the transformation of the country into an industrial powerhouse was genuine and enduring (until it was intentionally exported).
Top marginal tax rates under Eisenhower went up to 92%, and were at least 80% for the entire period. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Where’re my #$&! balls?
Those damn Dem dogs stole them for the convention!
The origin of the universe has not as yet been shown to be a conspiracy theory
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
leave it to the onion