Clinton moves away from Obama
The progressive establishment has formed a phalanx around Obama for the past six years. Despite his general unpopularity & controversial policies, they protected him. But Obama is past; Hillary future. To secure her ambitions, Hillary will need to throw Obama under the bus or at least step away from the wreck. Will the progressive establishment follow and if they do when does it start?
Hillary's record is not good. During her time as Secretary of State, the world got more out of hand. How can she run on this record? Easy - blame Obama. We will get a version of good-cop/bad-cop, with Hillary telling all the things she would have done and wanted to do but Obama stopped her. You can imagine it now. "If not for Obama, I would have solved the Syria problem, fixed Ukraine, prevented the tragedies in Libya & Iraq and never permitted the collapse of democracy in Egypt. I would have, but Obama ..."
Or consider domestic policy. "I know how to work with congress and get the economy moving. If I had my way, unemployment would be under 5% and the economy would be growing like it was the 1980s. But Obama ..."
It is Obama's fault too. He left her nothing to build on. If Hillary wants to be president, she has to reject most of the Obama time. She will no doubt emphasize his good intentions and historical role, while implying or saying outright that she just would have done everything better.
I expect the progressive establishment to make the pivot just after the November elections. Poor Obama. He thinks he is in the tank now, wait until the progressives are done. They can be a lot more vicious than conservatives.
And will the dwindling Obama camp fight back? They accused the Clintons of racism a few years back. Will those kinds of things resurface?
Posted by Christine & John at July 7, 2014 4:28 AM
Sorry, CJ, but your article is preposterous. While we cannot know what will happen in the next three years, we do know where things stand right now, and what has happened in the past.
Clinton was part of Obama’s cabinet and will fully embrace the following:
One of the biggest bull markets for stocks in American history
One of the fastest drops in the unemployment rate ever recorded- now down to 6.1%
Low interest rates
Rising housing prices… And you better believe people will notice that appreciation, along with the recovery of their IRA’s and 401k’s.
Bin Laden Dead
The leader of the Libyan militia captured and tried in a US court… Notice how Benghazi conspiracy theory died a sudden death?
An administration remarkably free of scandal and corruption. Almost no indictments or convictions for any wrongdoing.
A record of legislative achievement, including the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and, most importantly, Health Care Reform. Notice how all that talk about repeal withered up and blew away?
The Iraq War ended
By then, the debt will be dropping and the annual budget very nearly balanced. An amazing achievement.
Meanwhile, Obama just enjoyed about a five point bounce in the polls, thanks to the Hobby Lobby decision and some effective campaigning. He laughed at Republicans and said “so sue me” for being willing to act. Republicans are left sputtering.
Hugely favorable demographic picture, and getting better, thanks to the GOP punting on immigration reform and doing everything it can think of to alienate women.
Finally, the polls of today show Hillary with huge leads against potential challengers, and even competitive in states like TX.
Everything we see shows a close relationship between Hillary and Obama and a tsunami victory coming in 2016.
While I believe there will be a few moments where Hillary will tell us how she would have done things differently than Obama, I believe she will stick with blaming Bush and the Republicans for the the failures of liberal policy.
The far-left that now runs the Democrat party has way too much invested in the perceived success of the nations first black President. As they have done from day one of his candidacy, they will bend over backwards to defend, ignore and excuse his lack of success as President.
No matter how entitled Hillary believes she is to the Presidency, I do not think she will risk tarnishing the false perception the far-left has created of Obama.
Another thing she will not want to do is alienate black voters by blaming Obama for his failures as President. Many of them only voted for the black guy, and they won’t return the favor for someone who bashes the black guy. She needs at least half of those voters to show up for her.
Of course, that all depends if she decides to run again.
Hill may have driven the first nail in her presidential aspirations coffin. She has indicated that she would work closer with Republicans (she does not used the more accurate term for the GOP…TeaPublicans).
Americans are aware of which party is responsible for our failure at governance over the past five + years, and if she thinks we will elect someone who is ready to cave to that menagerie, she can think again. We need someone who will put a cork in the Koch run SCOTUS. Working closer with TeaPublicans will not get that done.
Both Obama and Hillary have indicated willingness to work with Republicans, but right now that only works with about 1/3 of the GOP. The other 2/3- the base, also known as the Tea Party- prides itself on its unwillingness to compromise. Republican candidates for office run promising not to compromise or cooperate or work with Obama in any way.
It will be difficult for Obama to accomplish much during these last three years. However, the negativity of the GOP makes it repulsive to voters outside the extremist & radical base. If Hillary wins the kind of landslide I expect, she will have both the House and a supermajority in the Senate. The Senate math is HUGELY favorable to Democrats in 2016, unlike the upcoming midterm.
What bothers me is the lack of new talent with Obama. We have other ‘less notables’ that are certainly more intellectual than Hilly, Obama, Kerry, Biden, and so on. I tire of the same old faces and with Hillary there is a potentiality we ‘miiiiiight’ see some new faces but alot of it will be the old faces we have grown-up with and that doesn’t foster us any new growth or debates.
We are losing the Iraq region to ISIL—now do we really want a woman in there? If the Obama administration sweeps the war under the rug like they are trying to do now, will this make her more palatable? Will she be potable water, so to speak, if we throw away the entirity of the war, like we are doing?
We are losing a war massively bad to insurgents and ba’athists and it looks like we will not regain footing again in this region for some time to come. Obama lost this for us and given the circumstances that is near criminal at this juncture given deathsquads and insurgent fighting.
How do we tell the families and wounded soldiers that we were just fooling around with this region and ‘not-in-it-to-win-it’. We have lost footing—Thanks Barak—ye’ left our country without conviction.
How do we tell civillians we are done in the region? Bang-up job Obama. Good going, we lost everything in less than a month and so thusly the promotion of democracy the world over is no longer on the table.
Bring me a republican as Dem as I am. We need to go back in there and settle their nation and bring relief to their peoples.
Sunnism should be shown outright as a non-survivor in that region and we have to do it, hell or highwater, do it.
“An administration remarkably free of scandal and corruption. Almost no indictments or convictions for any wrongdoing.”
BWAHAHAHA !!!!!! Thanks I needed a good laugh.
A majority of Americans do not view the Obama record as you do. That is why Democrats are running away from him, as Hillary will.
Re working with Republicans - it is probable that Republicans will win the Senate and keep the House. This will change the dynamic. Harry Reid has been protecting Obama and Democrats from hard votes. This will cease. It is likely that there will be role reversal, with Obama obstructing.
This midterm is shaping up to be a referendum on Obama, BTW. Let’s see how he does.
Conspiracy theory: meet reality!
No Obama administration official in the executive branch has been indicted or convicted of a crime related to any of the so-called scandals.
After enjoying the DOJ’s cooperation and receiving tons of information and testimony during the ATF investigation, the GOP Congress demanded Eric Holder turn over virtually all of DOJ’s e-mails- 876,000- for a fishing expedition. They couldn’t find anything, so they said, just send us everything anyone has ever emailed in the DOJ. The AG refused, quite rightly. The Republicans voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. And then… nothing happened.
Finding no evidence and then crying ‘there must be a cover-up’ and then finding no evidence of a cover-up does not count for anything.
Unless, of course, you are a gullible conservative
phx8, Eric Holder, He’s the reason no indicted or convicted. If this were a republican administration I know you and others would be calling for HEADS to roll!!!!!!
You can view Obama’s record anyway you want. I just recited a litany of facts. There is nothing partisan about this. It is simply what actually happened. Feel free to ignore reality. A large portion of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim and not born in this country. Feel free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you choose.
I notice no conservative will deny the facts I recited. Dbs expressed disbelief, but who knows what conspiracy rabbit hole he dived into.
Obama won two presidential elections with more than 50% of the vote, a rare achievement in our lifetimes. He is a superb campaigner. The idea that Hillary would not campaign with him is ludicrous.
It would be astounding if the GOP did not keep the House in the upcoming midterm. The Senate will be close. If the GOP shuts down the government again, or cheers on a few more Hobby Lobby cases, they might find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It will never get better for Republicans than this upcoming midterm. The 6th year of a president almost always turns out to be very favorable to the opposition party. The only exception since the early 1800’s was the Clinton impeachment, when the Republicans in Congress lost seats. It cost Gingrich and most of those yahoos their jobs. Boehner is not that stupid. He will make noises about suing Obama, but it is a laughably lame strategy, and even Obama laughed at it in public.
As unfavorable as 2014 is for Democrats, 2016 is more than twice as favorable. In the Senate, the Republican seats are all vulnerable, and the Democratic seats are safe- just the opposite of this upcoming election. Regardless of what happens in 2014, there is an excellent chance of a supermajority of Democrats in 2016. It’s just math.
2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
===（ http://www.kkship4biz.net ）===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust
Your right phx8, He’s a superb campaigner, nothing else.
Trouble is with great campaigns that win…they must now lead. obama is not a leader, he is the great divider. It’s truly funny how phx8 can predict events leading to the 2016 election. Thoughtful folks are not usually liberal dreamers.
obama is such a lousy leader that he now asks for $2 billion to deal with the illegal children he allowed into our country rather than using funds allocated to protect the border.
obama is such a lousy leader that despite the hundreds of billions allocated to jump start the economy with stimulus infrastructure programs and jobs, he succumbed to the usual graft and corruption and little was actually accomplished.
obama is such a lousy leader that our allies don’t trust him and our enemies don’t fear him.
One more, obama is such a lousy leader, president, and person that he thumbs his nose at congress.
What caused this sudden influx and why can’t these children just be sent back?
The answer is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 signed into law by President Bush which was intended to address child trafficking and exploitation problems. Obama wants changes in that law to alleviate the delays in returning children from Central American countries.
“The 2008 law, which passed both chambers of Congress by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush, dictates exactly how children caught crossing the border without their parents must be treated.
For children coming from “contiguous countries” – in other words, Mexico and Canada – a Border Patrol officer has the authority to determine whether the child is eligible to stay in the country. Because the child can be directly and safely handed over to officials from his or her home country, the process can move very quickly.
But for children from all other countries, any repatriation to their home country involves a plane flight and more preparation. The law dictates that after being caught, the child must be turned over within 72 hours to the Department of Health and Human Services to care for them and find them safe housing. HHS is also urged to find them legal counsel and child advocates who can explain the process of applying for asylum or identifying other ways to stay in the country.
While the law does not require that those children appear before an immigration judge, immigration lawyers say that is common practice given the amount of time they stay in the country awaiting a decision.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
It is not the way I see it. I am just telling you what most Americans think. I saw a Pew Poll that says that 65% of Americans will prefer policies different from Obama’s in the next president. Hillary may or may not share your optimistic view of President Obama, but she sure won’t want to go against 65% of the electorate.
Re Obama’s victory, he is the only president ever to be reelected with a smaller plurality the second time. His winning margin is statistically indistinguishable from what Bush won in 2004 and I know you don’t think much of Bush.
So this is my bottom line. It doesn’t much matter what you or I think about this A significant majority of the American people reject Obama’s policies. So why would Hillary want to promise more of the same? She will - already is - showing how she is different and she claims better.
With the latest job report, the US has enjoyed 52 consecutive months of private job growth. That sets an all-time record. The same is not true of public job growth because Obama has not grown the government.
There’s a fact. See if you can respond with a fact- you know- something that happened in reality- as opposed to vague statements about how ‘little was accomplished.’
Obama has used fewer executive orders than any other president since before WWII. He has issued 147 in five years. The next most is Bush #41, with 166 in four years, then Ford, with 169 in three years. Bush #43 issued 291, and Reagan issued #381.
Oh, but wait. The current conservative conspiracy theory says Obama ‘thumbs his nose at Congress.’ Do go on. Don’t let facts or reality interrupt you.
So the Pew report shows people want the country to become more liberal? That’s good. People “want different policies.” Makes sense.
Hillary Clinton was always more hawkish than Obama about foreign policy. She wanted to stay in Iraq. That has a lot to do with why she did not win the nomination. Then again, Hillary was always more liberal than Obama on domestic policy. Hillary wanted a version of universal health care. Obama preferred the conservative solution, Romneycare, a.k.a. Obamacare. Obama won. He succeeded in doing something no one has done in a long time by reforming health care, and now it is doing very well by any measure.
You all seem to be talking domestic policy, foreign matters are a mess. Foreign matters are a mess due to lack of action. Lack of action is due to lousy appointments. Lousy appointments are due to Obama’s choosing and that’s what I’m saying. Most of what he chose were elbow-rubbers from the senate as if he didn’t take resumees & that’s what I’m seeing.
We lose Iraq with myriad debackles around the region due to him choosing his chums for cabinet appointments.
No one dare touch that one. A buddy of Obama’s goes far, it’s an in crowd.
When did the presidency of the United States start being a popularity contest? Polls can be very subjective, if a liberal is asked “do you support President Obama’s policies?” they might answer no because he wasn’t liberal enough, but that doesn’t matter to the poll they said “no”. There are two polls that matter when it comes to being president. Coincidentally they are held at polling places or done through the mail. They are called an election and a re-election. President Obama won both of those. What he does with that is called history and that will be written and re-written many times over. To say that “the American people reject Obama’s policies” is a bit facetious. Let’s watch him do the job he was elected to do and then let history record his accomplishments and failures. Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run, will run on her merits and of course the successes of the previous Democratic President. A smart politician, which she appears to be, would know how to handle the discussion of failures. Avoidance and an attempt at understanding how to change to succeed.
Off subject but of interest to all environmentalists is an article appearing in the NY Times.
A California Oil Field Yields Another Prized Commodity
“But the Kern River field also produces 10 times more of something that, at least during California’s continuing drought, has become more valuable to many locals and has experienced the kind of price spike more familiar to oil: water. The field’s owner, Chevron, sells millions of gallons every day to a local water district that distributes it to farmers growing almonds, pistachios, citrus fruits and other crops.
In a normal year, Chevron’s water is a little bit cheaper than water bought from the state, which goes for $30 to $60 per acre-foot, said Mr. Ansolabehere, the water district manager. This year, while the price of Chevron’s water is unchanged, water on the open market is being sold for up to $1,300 per acre-foot as water districts receive only a tiny fraction of what they are supposed to get from the state, he added.”
Sorry…forgot to include the link which is…http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/california-drought-chevron-oil-field-water-irrigation.html?emc=edit_th_20140708&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55454588
The thing is, the Republican has spent the last several years essentially being critics, and nothing else. They lack statesmen, they lack people with policy experience. All they have is a nice big chunk of ideological cheerleaders.
We’re not going to make it easy, but even if we lose, my feeling is that the Republicans are going to remind people why they dropkicked them out in the first place, just like the Supreme Court reminded women and progressives why making sure Republicans don’t get elected is a priority.
“my feeling is that the Republicans are going to remind people why they dropkicked them out in the first place”
Does this mean that if 2014 is like 2010, it is because liberals reminded people why they dropkicked liberals out in the first place?
Let me guess, it’s somehow “different,” isn’t it. LOL
CJ, and yet another canard from the great canard giver on this site. Your statement about a majority of American does not hold water. He was elected and re-elected. But now you have poll numbers!! My gosh that should be proof positive for anyone who doesn’t really pay attention much.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t your typical SOS. You have no idea what her mission was but I’ll give you a clue, it is the same thing that she will campaign on if she decides to run. During her tenure as SOS she involved more women from our country and the rest of the world in taking part in policy discussion and practical implementation of those policies. I know you missed that because you get all excited about war and adversity, she didn’t. She laid the foundations of involving more women into the political discussion and will continue to do this, even if she doesn’t run for President. But if she does run you can bet she will build on the precepts of dignity and acceptance of women in government and I dare say will be successful doing that. The times they are a changin’, as Mr. Dylan said.
phx8, many people consider the “sustained recovery” private job creation rate to be 250,000 per month to keep pace with the additional workers. The White House states…”The private sector has added 9.7 million jobs over 52 straight months of job growth.” That is 186K jobs per month.
Most Americans do not know that job growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from January 1946, after World War II, until January 2008, jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. Reagan’s recovery produced job growth in 81 out of its first 82 months, with 20 million new jobs created over those 7 years, increasing the civilian workforce at the time by 20%. Even George W. Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth, including nearly 8 million new jobs created after his 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rate cuts became effective.
obama and phx8 believe that a majority of Americans do not know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually. American recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest at 16 months.
Under obama real wages have fallen and more Americans are living in poverty today than at any time in more than 50 years.
In the second year of Reagan’s recovery, the economy boomed by a real rate of 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Real per capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in those first 7 years of the Reagan boom alone. The poverty rate, which had started increasing during the Carter years, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. That is the proper comparison for Obama’s economic performance.
The American historical experience is that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, as the American economy snaps back to its world-leading, long-term, economic growth trend line. Based on this historical record, we should be enjoying a raging economic recovery boom right now.
“The American economy is actually doing reasonably well — at least compared with what would be expected after a major financial crisis — according to a provocative study from Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, Harvard economists and financial crisis historians whose work has been attacked and embraced by the political right and left.
The study, presented over the weekend at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, rejects comparisons with regular postwar American recoveries, as other economists have made, and instead examines 100 major, or “systemic,” financial crises that have occurred over the last two centuries, in the United States and abroad.
It found that relative to previous American financial crises, the current economy is doing substantially better. Across nine major financial crises in the United States, the average peak-to-trough decline in inflation-adjusted per-capita gross domestic product is about 9 percent, and it has taken an average of 6.7 years to recover to the precrisis peak. During the years after crises, five of the nine episodes also had a “double-dip” downturn.
By contrast, the recent American subprime crisis beginning in 2007 had “only” a 5 percent drop in per capita output, and took “only” six years to get back to the precrisis peak. And so far, at least, there has been no second downward turn.”
“Eleven other countries experienced systemic crises around the time the United States did: France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Ukraine and Britain. Six years later, just two of them — the United States and Germany — have recovered to their previous peak in real income.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/business/economy/study-suggests-recovery-in-us-is-relatively-vital.html?_r=0
Why use Reagan? The current champion of US presidents on economic performance is Clinton hands down.
But, it’s simply foolish to compare recoveries and policies.
Reagan took a Keynesian approach with huge deficit spending during his recessions. He tripled the US debt. The economy boomed, at least for a while.
Clinton, on the other hand, addressed his inherited downturn by raising taxes and cutting spending. Booming economy exceeding the Reagan period.
So, whose policies should be followed? Probably neither. Better to assess the nature of the economic issues and act accordingly but not according to some ideological fantasy.
From the link Rich provided…
“Employment and other measurements currently remain well below their precrisis peaks, but it is difficult to compare those numbers to past crises because the historical data for those categories is not as reliable, Ms. Reinhart said. Relative to its current peer countries, the study says, the United States is also doing unusually well.”
Interesting…”Fact” presented and then undermined.
From the link…
“Finally, and perhaps most significant, the United States was still able to borrow money easily as the rest of the world sought safe assets.”
Well yes, we could borrow all the money we wanted to and now have a national debt of over $17 trillion. Of course, this can not continue forever and we will be in horrific shape when we collapse.
From the link…
“she (a co-author) said the long-term decline in labor force participation was worrisome.”
Yes, indeed…I would say it is very worrisome.
From the link…
“John B. Taylor, a Stanford economist said that such measures as inflation, housing investment and unemployment showed a strong economy leading up to the crisis.
Unlike the Reinhart-Rogoff work, Mr. Taylor argues that it is fair to compare some postwar recoveries to the current one — a comparison that does indeed make today’s economic conditions look unusually bad.
He places blame for this tepid recovery on economic uncertainty and regulation, and on what he calls a departure from rules-based, predictable monetary policy.”
I believe Mr. Taylor’s critique is more likely the case.
The fact that the US is leading the recovery in the western economies should give pause as to any doubts about the correctness of the policies. When your doing better than others in similarly situated circumstances, then you are probably doing something right.
This was an enormous private sector debt implosion. The Fed has fully understood that normal monetary policies encouraging lending and private sector debt expansion by reducing interest rates was not an effective strategy to stimulate credit expansion and the money supply in the private sector. Economists recognized that the recovery would be slow as the private sector balance sheets repaired. Nobody was rushing to incur new debt and banks weren’t interested in lending under the circumstances.
But, there has been recovery. Better than most. Slowly, we are beginning to clear out debt and lending has accordingly increased.
As for the federal deficit. It has dramatically declined as the recovery has continued.
Rich, I will stay in agreement with Mr. Taylor’s quote above. “today’s economic conditions look unusually bad.”
“John B. Taylor, a Stanford economist said that such measures as inflation, housing investment and unemployment showed a strong economy leading up to the crisis.”
Geeeeez, even in retrospect, he apparently doesn’t recognize the fact that the “strong economy” was illusory and that its collapse was greater than the Great Depression.
No wonder he can’t understand the dynamics of this recovery.
Hmmm…Rich, do numbers now lie?
Obama and Bush were reelected by statistically identical margins (50.7% v 51.1, 0.4% is within margins of error). I recall this time in the Bush presidency, Democrats did not hold back on their criticism.
Re Hillary - I don’t think she did a good job. If this is what you call rule by women will look like, we cannot be optimistic. But that was not the point I made. My point is that she is abandoning Obama because 65% of Americans polled want his policies to change. This is an easily checked fact.
I have said before that I think Clinton did a decent job. But he was also very lucky. The downturn ended in 1991, but things in the economy take a while to be manifest. Clinton came into office just as it hit stride. The expansion ended in March 2000. Same thing goes about lag time. It was not manifest until a couple years later.
Obama was also lucky in that the downturn ended just about the time he came into office. We started to recover well in 2010 (the summer of recovery) but then entered the doldrums. We will talk about the causes for a long time to come. What we can say as of today, is that it has been Obama’s economy for going on five years now (considering lag times) Are we content? The irony is that stock markets are doing well, so the rich are okay. It is exactly the kind of jobless recovery Clinton blamed on Bush.
But let me merely return to my original point. Most Americans are unhappy with the Obama performance. Hillary knows this and is already starting to blame Obama. If she runs, this trickle of anti-Obama venom will turn to a flood and I wonder where the progressives will stand.
Where do you get those numbers? Why do you approve of job growth when it is mostly government jobs? That is what happened during the Bush years. Now it is OK? You cite those statistics as if you approve. Suddenly you are a big proponent of government spending and government jobs and expanding government!
When Bush #41 took over, the national debt was projected to go from negative $5 trillion to positive $10 trillion in ten years. The annual budget was running a surplus. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 spawned a sea of red ink, and by the time Bush left office, the national debt had climbed to $10 trillion, the annual deficit to $1 trillion, and the economy was losing jobs at a clip of 600,000 to 800,000 jobs per month.
And to pretend all recessions are the same is silly. ‘The worse the recession, the stronger the recovery’? Really? So THAT explains the Great Depression! And the great recovery! Er, I mean, World War II.
Sheesh. What tripe.
Not all recessions are the same. The economic crash at the end of the Bush administration was an asset deflation and credit crunch. We’ve never seen anything remotely like it, unless you count The Great Depression.
No truer words were ever spoken. (Your post #380720)
Strangely my comment from Friday July 11th was removed. Not only that but CJ’s comment 380718 seems to have been altered as well. The reference to the “wreck” of the Obama presidency and the need for Democratic candidates to perhaps leave the “sinking ship” have been removed. My comment was in response to those accusations.
There is no wreck as far as Obama’s Presidency is concerned. The polls I pay attention to are the ones in November of election years, no others. The only thing sinking is the Republican/Teaparty chances of electing anyone to the white house given their unappealing decisions regarding women and minorities. This willingness to project the divisiveness of the Republican/Teaparty feud onto the Democratic candidacy for president is as phx8 said “ludicrous”.