Barack Obama the new Bill Clinton

moon1969

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,288
Is Barack Obama the new Bill Clinton? How many Clinton people are there in the Obama crew: Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Lawrence Summers, Hillary Clinton. So who is next Richard Holbrooke or Madeleine Albright? Only thing missing is Monica Lewinsky and what role will the former boss Bill Clinton play in the Obama administration? Marc Rich must be so happy that the former Clinton crew is back in the White House. :D
 
moon1969 said:
Is Barack Obama the new Bill Clinton? How many Clinton people are there in the Obama crew: Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Lawrence Summers, Hillary Clinton. So who is next Richard Holbrooke or Madeleine Albright? Only thing missing is Monica Lewinsky and what role will the former boss Bill Clinton play in the Obama administration? Marc Rich must be so happy that the former Clinton crew is back in the White House. :D
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

1. His wife is slender and attractive, and apparently thinks very highly of him. I don't think he'll be bagging buxom wenches in the Oval Office. She won't be throwing lamps and ashtrays at him.

2. He enters office with US in some significant economic trouble. Clinton didn't. The pressure will make his opening months profoundly different.

3. He enters office with the US involved in serious crap in at least two nations overseas. Clinton showed up with Somalia on his plate, which he promptly cocked up. (Not all his fault, but his decisions didn't help.) Obama is already not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

4. Obama won a majority of votes case, Clinton a plurality, to get into office. Hence, Clinton had no mandate, thanks to Perot's ability to suck votes away from Bush. (Or Clinton, pick your opinion) Obama thus has a bit more opportunity to make popular appeals and get support.

5. Obama is a decent public speaker, but I don't think he's as good with a sound byte, nor a concise description, as Slick Willy. His aloof act may be more appropriate to the White House, though Clinton's warmth played well.

6. Most importantly. Hillary Clinton works for him. She didn't work for Bill. That means he can fire her if she screws up, which Bill could not. Conversely, she could not (bring herself to) fire Bill when he screwed up, which as I look at it makes me chuckle.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
I don't think so.

1. His wife is slender and attractive, and apparently thinks very highly of him. I don't think he'll be bagging buxom wenches in the Oval Office. She won't be throwing lamps and ashtrays at him.

2. He enters office with US in some significant economic trouble. Clinton didn't. The pressure will make his opening months profoundly different.

3. He enters office with the US involved in serious crap in at least two nations overseas. Clinton showed up with Somalia on his plate, which he promptly cocked up. (Not all his fault, but his decisions didn't help.) Obama is already not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

4. Obama won a majority of votes case, Clinton a plurality, to get into office. Hence, Clinton had no mandate, thanks to Perot's ability to suck votes away from Bush. (Or Clinton, pick your opinion) Obama thus has a bit more opportunity to make popular appeals and get support.

5. Obama is a decent public speaker, but I don't think he's as good with a sound byte, nor a concise description, as Slick Willy. His aloof act may be more appropriate to the White House, though Clinton's warmth played well.

6. Most importantly. Hillary Clinton works for him. She didn't work for Bill. That means he can fire her if she screws up, which Bill could not. Conversely, she could not (bring herself to) fire Bill when he screwed up, which as I look at it makes me chuckle.
Click to expand...


7. Both Bill Clinton and his shrew of a wife are deeply, thoroughly, unalterably corrupt and venal; and can be counted on to abuse whatever power and authority they may gain to their own greedy ends, to the detriment of any that they are supposed to serve. This was obvious to me almost as soon as they came to prominence during the 1992 campaign. Much of the time, they didn't even try to hide it. While I have deep, profound disagreements with Obama on just about every possible issue of policy, I have so far seen no evidence that he is anything but sincere and honest in his desire to do what he thinks is best for the nation. On matters of policy, I see little difference between Obama and Clinton. On matters of character, morals, and ethics, he appears to be about as far opposite from Clinton as it is possible to be.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
7. Both Bill Clinton and his shrew of a wife are deeply, thoroughly, unalterably corrupt and venal; and can be counted on to abuse whatever power and authority they may gain to their own greedy ends, to the detriment of any that they are supposed to serve. This was obvious to me almost as soon as they came to prominence during the 1992 campaign. Much of the time, they didn't even try to hide it. While I have deep, profound disagreements with Obama on just about every possible issue of policy, I have so far seen no evidence that he is anything but sincere and honest in his desire to do what he thinks is best for the nation. On matters of policy, I see little difference between Obama and Clinton. On matters of character, morals, and ethics, he appears to be about as far opposite from Clinton as it is possible to be.
Click to expand...
Don't let me be the one to burst your bubble, but Obama comes to us from that land of honesty and integrity, ChicagoPoliticsLand.

Honest you may or may not get. Hope for it, you can.

We shall see if you get it.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Don't let me be the one to burst your bubble, but Obama comes to us from that land of honesty and integrity, ChicagoPoliticsLand.

Honest you may or may not get. Hope for it, you can.

We shall see if you get it.
Click to expand...


I guess we'll see. If he is other than what he currently appears to me to be, then he certainly isn't as blatant and obvious about it as the Clintons were.
 
Somet things I would like to mention here:

1. Bill Clinton didn't have any Republicans working in his cabinet or advising him. Obama has two Republicans, James Jones and Robert Gates.

2. People who served under Clinton such as Susan Rice and Bill Richardson are just too good not to keep.

3. The change will come from Obama. His ideas are the change.

I still want a young face in the cabinet, but we will see how that goes. Hopefully, the EPA will actually be a respected and active department.
 
Darth Rotor said:
4. Obama won a majority of votes case, Clinton a plurality, to get into office. Hence, Clinton had no mandate, thanks to Perot's ability to suck votes away from Bush. (Or Clinton, pick your opinion) Obama thus has a bit more opportunity to make popular appeals and get support.
Click to expand...

Serious question, is that a reflection of the fact that proportionally more people voted for him (and proportionally fewer voted against him) so he starts off with a bigger level of public support? Or will the size of his victory convince alone convince people to go along with him?


The Big Dinosaur said:
Somet things I would like to mention here:

1. 8. Bill Clinton didn't have any Republicans working in his cabinet or advising him. Obama has two Republicans, James Jones and Robert Gates.

2. 9. People who served under Clinton such as Susan Rice and Bill Richardson are just too good not to keep.

3. 10. The change will come from Obama. His ideas are the change.
Click to expand...

I changed the numbering to keep things in order.

I would add:

11. In as much as he is the new President, he is the new Clinton, the new Reagan and both the new Bushes. Not to mention the new Polk, the new Taft and the new McKinley. While McCain is the new Humphrey, Alf, Adlai, Greeley and Wendell (yes I know I have thrown in some first names there).
 
The Big Dinosaur said:
1. Bill Clinton didn't have any Republicans working in his cabinet or advising him. Obama has two Republicans, James Jones and Robert Gates.
Click to expand...
Wrong sir. Cohen, his Sec Def in term two, was a Republican. Also a pretty sorry excuse for a SecDef, but he came to Slick Willy from the GOP. That he followed Dr Perry was bound to make him look poor in comparison. Perry, for my money, did a decent job.
2. People who served under Clinton such as Susan Rice and Bill Richardson are just too good not to keep.
Click to expand...
We shall see. Rummy was a retread at Sec Def, and for all his talents, didn't come off so hot his second time around.
3. The change will come from Obama. His ideas are the change.
Click to expand...
Name three.

@ David James: if you need more smilies from me to get the tone of a post, please advise.

DR
 
How many democratic politicians with experience in federal offices do NOT have some ties with Clinton?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
7. Both Bill Clinton and his shrew of a wife are deeply, thoroughly, unalterably corrupt and venal; and can be counted on to abuse whatever power and authority they may gain to their own greedy ends, to the detriment of any that they are supposed to serve. This was obvious to me almost as soon as they came to prominence during the 1992 campaign. Much of the time, they didn't even try to hide it. While I have deep, profound disagreements with Obama on just about every possible issue of policy, I have so far seen no evidence that he is anything but sincere and honest in his desire to do what he thinks is best for the nation. On matters of policy, I see little difference between Obama and Clinton. On matters of character, morals, and ethics, he appears to be about as far opposite from Clinton as it is possible to be.
Click to expand...

I guess that if people keep saying this kind of thing, it may one day become true? Clinton, for all his faults, was 100% better than the President we've had for the past eight years.

Obama may or may not be even better, but from what I have seen, my money is on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom