inedal, it occurred to me yesterday that Bob Dole might have done a better job than Clinton of keeping "those right-wing religious extremists out of the white house." The more I reflect on this, the more I'm convinced of it.

Posted at April 11, 2008 9:48 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

Bill Gates as metaphor -- I can have that.

I also enjoyed your reply to oceancat.

When you have the inclination to discover a sane economics, do follow the link I provided to Henry George's Progress and Poverty. There's also an on-line course based on the book for all of $10.00.

The left is going to get nowhere fast, and nowhere with any stability, in the absence of an alternative to neo-classical and neo-liberal economics. And George is it.

Posted at April 11, 2008 9:43 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

There's no such thing as "deregulation," which means "freeing from regulation." That would mean no rules, and markets without rules don't work.

There is only changing regulations. And the biggest changes Clinton helped make were in the direction of eliminating FDR's anti-monopoly regulations so that the current crop of monopolists could have a field day. (See my other post in this thread about Bill Gates.)

Posted at April 11, 2008 9:23 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

Thanks, David, for debunking this, too.

Posted at April 11, 2008 9:05 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

(Note: This is FreeBubba posting with my old nick because TPM software doesn't seem to like my new one today.)

You go, boy! :)

One objection: "Bill Gates is far more responsible for the economic good times of the 1990s than Bill Clinton."

Neither of them are the least bit responsible for those economic good times. Quite the contrary.

The economic good times happened in spite of Bill Clinton and Bill Gates. You're already clarifying Clinton, so I'll leave him to you.

As for Gates, he is one of the most successful monopolists in the history of the world. Imagine what might have been without Gates doing his utmost to monopolise as much as he could of the software, hardware and Internet industries. And, of course, he's still at it.

When you see a single individual amass such wealth, realise that you are not looking at someone who has produced, or has been responsible for the production of, anything remotely comparable to that wealth.

Some individuals are capable of tremendous wealth production and/or enabling many, many others to produce wealth. But none, even of these, are capable, on their own, without the assistance of many, many others, of producing vast amounts of wealth.

Vast wealth in the hands of single individuals is almost entirely unearned. It is amassed. And it is amassed only in an economic system that allows, or even favours, monopoly.

Monopoly includes the disproportionate, unethical use of copyrights and patents.

There's nothing "natural" about a monopoly. There's no reason monopoly need play any role whatsoever in economics. Where it does, it is after being written into legislation at the behest of the special interests who want to gain by it. Their gain is everybody else's loss.

Why do the few get richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer?

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm

Posted at April 11, 2008 8:59 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

oceancat: "Its hard for me to see him as a young FDR in any way."

Like I said, it's still early in the game.

Note: This is FreeBubba posting with my old nick because the new one isn't working today. Love the TPM blogger software ...

Posted at April 11, 2008 7:57 AM in response to Bursting the Bill Clinton Bubble

stemper: *She repeated the lie more than once.*

How many times will Hillary and Bill have to repeat the truth for it to sink in? Do they remind you of anyone?

"If you have retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. I'll probably say it three more times, see? In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc

Posted at April 11, 2008 7:45 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Media Acted Like Hillary Was "Just Making Up All This Stuff" On Bosnia

Interesting speculation, no doubt. But I would point out a few things.

McCain, whatever one may think of his politics or his occasional -- repeat, occasional -- flashes of anger or hostility, has been a viable U.S. Representative and Senator for twenty-eight years.

As with just about any politician, he's shown himself, on occasion, to be dishonest, a hypocrite and as regards to the Iraq invasion and occupation, an old fool. But he has also held positions and helped pass legislation which is universally admired, or as good as.

He's a husband and father, and I've yet to hear stories of his being other than a good one. He divorced his first wife on good terms before marrying his second.

After his return from Vietnam, neither his life — with the exception of his first marriage — nor his career went downhill. To the contrary, he seems to have matured considerably and to have gone on to make the most of his opportunities.

These things are hardly indications of someone having experienced PTSD or, in the event he did, of someone incapable of handling whatever the consequences might be.

"[P]sychiatrically damaged"? Show me someone who is not "psychiatrically damaged." I've no reason to assume other than that you were simply following the line of your speculation, but this is not merely a flippant assertion, it's a gratuitous insult.

Unlike you, I do not honour either his navy service or the years he spent as a pow. As I wrote in an earlier post, while I admire him for having kept his wits, I consider him a coward for having failed to learn what he should have learned from his experiences in the military.

It's unfortunate that he continues to find comfort burying his head up the Republican elephant's ass — unequivocally an indication of educational and experiential damage — but he deserves better than you're giving him here.

McCain should have beat Bush in 2000. Just like Clinton should have run and beat him in 2004. They're both anachronisms. The sooner they accept this and move on, the better.

Posted at April 8, 2008 6:28 PM in response to McCain & PTSD

Hear, hear!

Posted at April 7, 2008 8:41 PM in response to Mark Penn's Earlier Version Of 3 A.M. Ad Was Negative Direct Hit On Obama

How much further from anything meaningful, how much more detached from actual politics, how much deeper into the nuances and shades of complete and utter bullshit is a campaign allowed to dive before it's seen as what it is?

How much more crap are Clinton supporters going to swallow before they finally gag, throw up and come to their senses?

And don't give me more crap by telling me, "this is politics." No, this is not politics. It is crap. At its very best it is crap desperately pretending to be politics.

I'm following election campaigns in three quite diverse countries apart from the U.S.. In none of them would so much of the crap that passes for politics in the U.S. be viewed as anything other than the crap it is. What the hell is the matterwith some of you people?!

Posted at April 7, 2008 8:33 PM in response to Mark Penn's Earlier Version Of 3 A.M. Ad Was Negative Direct Hit On Obama