Badmovies.org Forum

Clinton offers advice to Obama: go sell your plans 

Giving credit to the Republicans for their candor in the wake of Tuesday's primaries, President Bill Clinton urged President Obama to take his 'story' to American voters and make a more rigorous case for what his administration has accomplished and what they plan to do to spur economic recovery and job growth.

Clinton offered his analysis in an interview with Yahoo! News and The Huffington Post. He acknowledged both the administration's efforts to reverse the economic downturn and the frustration, anger and anxiety so many Americans feel in this precarious financial climate: "He and the Congress have done a better job than they've gotten credit for. But they shouldn't ask for credit because people can't give credit if they don't feel better."

In response to the success of conservative Republicans in Tuesday's primaries, he urged the President to get "out on there on the stump" and sell his own plan. "He's got a story to tell. Talk about the stakes, not name call but tell the facts. The Republicans have been very candid and I give them this, with what they intend to do if they get into Congress," he said... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100918/el_yblog_upshot/clinton-offers-advice-to-obama-go-sell-your-plans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100918/el_yblog_upshot/clinton-offers-advice-to-obama-go-sell-your-plans)

I'm not sure if Obama needs to take advice from the man who handed the Republicans their biggest electoral landslide since 1866 . . . but if it will produce the same result -



I HOPE HE DOES!

HAHA!   :cheers:   :cheers:

I'd like to know how much the State Dept. spent on Viagra when he went over to rescue those two girls in N. Korea....

You are good at derailing and dumbing down.   :wink:

Nah, didn't mean to, it was just a joke.  What Clinton means is that he wants Obama
to sell his plans, and do so in a way that makes them stick when he throws em' to the wall.

You have to appeal to peoples' senses of morality, ideals, ect. and hope they have enough faith in you to buy it. 

In many ways, people are like little kids when it comes to politics..

Most kids hate liver, right?  The politician, like the parent, then cuts the liver in smaller pieces, hoping the kid will try, "just one bite" and hope they will like it, and take bigger bites as thye see what they've been missing.

So as well as derailing and dumbing down, I hope my powers of analysis are good too  :wink:  Peace  :cheers:

I've always like Clinton and he's right.   :thumbup:

Yeah I guess he and Hillary were "right" when they jailed Peter F. Paul after they wiped his 2.5 million off their books?

Chinese Democracy--taking  alleged foreign endorsements off of Norman F. Hsu in violation of Campaign Finance reform laws.  But don't worry, Obama's new Supreme Court just abolished the ban on Corporate campaign finance, so now the real fun begins.

You thought the corporations ran the show in the Bush era? Now you'll really have something to complain about. Just don't complain when Right Wing corporations donate to THEIR favorite candidates. Remember it's a 2 way street.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247


The justices who did this were not Obamas..

The only Obama appointee on the supreme court at the time of this ruling was Sonia Sotomayor and she dissented. Clintons appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

They're media darlings, they and Gotti shared one great thing in common-nothing stuck to them.  The Clintons are media royalty, that's why they got away with it.



Of course he's going to develop a forceful response...just like they promised to do with illegal immigration for years now.  On Corporate Campaign Finance?  Oh yes....something
will be done about corporate finance allright, right after the Democrats benefit from the gains they recieve in the inaugural round of corporate funding that they hide from the public thru the usual channels.  Political "first strike" capability.



Of course, the two most liberal of the appointees would dissent against corporate funding.  They don't want the NRA or the Right-To-Life groups to get millions to endorse their fave candidates.  God forbid if THAT happened....their opponents might actually have a chance for once, as well as enough money to refute the "fluff" and "attack" ads that permeate every election (as well as both sides engaging in regularly.)  It's not that hard to see.

Obama wanted transparency-he got it this time. He's as see thru as a wet paper bag.

So, what is your opinion of the ruling?

Personally, I think the court got it right.  We may not like the influence that big business has in government, but  the court has ruled repeatedly that political contributions are a form of free speech.  It has also ruled that corporations, legally speaking, are persons, or at least, have the same constitutional rights as persons.

IF those two rulings are accurate, then placing arbitrary limits on corporate contributions is an unconstitutional violation of their First Amendment rights.  Without a specific repeal of the first two findings mentioned above, then McCain/Feingold (the law that placed the limits on corporate contributions to political causes) was unconstitutional and needed to be thrown out.

I always try to defer to the wisdom of our founders.  Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, noted that special interests would use money to try and influence the workings of the Federal Government, as they have every other government in the history of the world.  His solution was not to restrict them but to let them proliferate, so that they would cancel each other out.  That is pretty much how it works out in practice.  As a rule, politicians vote the way their political leanings take them, and special interest groups gravitate towards those elected officials who reflect their views.  So the ACLU supports some, and the NRA supports others, and so on.  I'm not saying that it's a perfect system, but the Court needs to either honor its own findings, or else repeal them.  McCain/Feingold was a deeply flawed law, and its repeal will encourage the creation of legislation that will hopefully honor the rulings of the Court and the wording of our Constitution, while still keeping harmful interests from unduly influencing our government.

Sorry to butt in . . . knee-jerk government teacher reaction.

Dosen't mean that corporations should have more say than the little guy because they have more money. This ruling has now allowed for that to happen. Corporations can now just run over the little people. This is an obvious attempt to continue to allow the Federal government to continually cancel out the little person until they have no say at all (IF any of us have any say at all.)



Problem there is that the Federal powers WON'T cancel out, they will proliferate. Overseas interests connected to domestic special interests will see to this.

 

"Harmful interests", like George Soros, the UN and The World Bank and their continued assault against the 2nd Amendment,  Internet Free Speech and the right of their opponents to have a dissenting opinion?  These groups aren't going to stop until America is defenseless, assimilated and absorbed and Our Bill Of Rights is eviscerated and replaced by International Law. 

So as we can see,  this ruling was allegedly for the good of the U.S........ :lookingup:

If you feel that way, which is at worst "liberal," why would you blame "Obama's new supreme court"?  That type of commentary undermines the many excellent points you make in your total statement.  BTW, I agree with the above segment of your statement, except the portion regarding "...allow the Federal government to continually cancel out the little person..." it's not the government, but those which serve those special interests within it.  

Powerful words.  :thumbup:
 
Don't blame the Democrats then; you know the problem is the system and the influence of money upon it.   :question:
Good words by both, with particular thanks to our resident historian, IndianaSmith.   :thumbup:

Please pardon my replies coming out grey...I properly separated the quotes (as far as I know) and replied best I could. Imust have missed somethng somewhere...

All you have to do is hit the "quote" for the posting to which you are replying, then, start typing below this: [/quote]
Hit the PREVIEW button to see how you've done.  With a little practise, you will start cleaning up your postings always being mindful of the "quotes". 

I did it right before, I just must have missed something in the haste to reply to you. I'm a bit tired too...too many late-night sessions with Assassin's Creed 2  :buggedout: