What did you think of President Clintons endorsement?

1. 0

   screamingposted 12 years ago

   TO every Republican who are voting for Romney, not because you like him, but because you dislike President Obama! Listen to President Clintons speech! You might find yourself rethinking, and voting for President Obama in November! Many of you have written that you would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton for President, so obviously you're not happy with Romney!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I give Clinton's speech the same merit I give all convicted purjerors, none.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Romney is a very self serving individual. He will only do what he thinks is best for his family and rich friends and rich business partners. He doesn't care about the middleclass or working poor. He will destroy America if he is elected,to line his own pockets. I hope it doesn't happen. It's a very scary scenerio if he ends up winning. I wish we had more choices but out of the 2 Obama seems like the better and safer choice.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Romney won't "destroy America." That's what the right says about Obama, and he won't "destroy America," either. I doubt the average voter will see a huge amount of difference, either way.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Are you kidding me??? Women won't be able to have a choice about there own bodies ? No more planned parenthood, No more afordable medicare for seniors as we know it? like going back to the dark ages...very very scary....

            replyreport
            1. 93

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Congress will still be alive and kicking.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               While I agree with you that their policies are scary, I doubt they could actually implement most of them.  I don't know if you noticed, but they made a point of NOT talking about their social policies at the convention because most of America would find them off-putting to put it mildly.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Ya think !!!LOL LOL thanks, about your last few words . Romney did avoid any of those issues.
                  
                  I would hope that the Romney plan could never be implemented. Let's just hope we don't have to worry about that scenerio.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I agree!  We should not vote for the loonies.  LOL
                     
                     The sad thing is, I don't think most Republicans are loonies. I think Romney, if left to his own devices, would probably be a good President.  For some bizarre reason, he's decided he has to cater to the crazy.  Sad, sad, sad.  He will lose the election because of it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I do hope he does lose the election. He is just going off his antiquated beliefs at least where women , poor and middleclass Americans are concerened. I wish we had more choices. But this is it .

                        replyreport
                     2. 93

                        habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree. I keep waiting for him to move to the center, but I ain't holdin' my breath.

                        replyreport
               2. 82

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  " I don't know if you noticed, but they made a point of NOT talking about their social policies at the convention because most of America would find them off-putting to put it mildly."
                  
                  Yeah, I think that's why the DNC speakers are killing it and the RNC ones were blah at best and laughable at worst. The Democrats actually believe in what they're saying, whereas the Republicans have to hide their true agenda or they'll lose the moderate/independent vote.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes I totally argree!!!

                     replyreport
   3. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Watching these conventions is like going to a pep rally in high school. Lots of building up your candidate while villifying the opposition. The issues are watered down and given in digestable form so the delegates can eat it up like little bon bons of joy. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, huh? The other misnomer when looking at the debates is how the candidates can defend their platforms and idiology. Once again it usually goes to not the best suited but the slickest and quickest on their feet.
      
      One has to look at the record, who their donors are and if the message makes sense to past historical policy if there is a chance for the candidate to succeed. That does not mean he will win the election because Americans have proven time and time again that logic is overun by passion.

      replyreport
   4. 79

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bubba rocks! He is definitely the President's secret weapon. The bounce from in the polls from this convention should make certain Mr. Obama retains the White House, and the fact that the  rightwingers salivate like the mad dogs  over the prospect. makes me all the more confident that the Convention and its star speakers has had the desired effect.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Bounce expected, but...
         There is still the very troubling phenomenon of Citizens United-enabled saturation in key markets. All day, all night, paid for lies. From now until November.
         People who didn't watch the convention, who zone out in front of their TVs and absorbe 30 and 60 second ads, people who are clearly heart people and never have been or want to be head people (e.g., never read a newspaper or do any research on any issue)will believe the lies.
         Every day I still see Mike Huckabee ads (I think CNN but could be elsewhere) with the same OLD tired fight Obamacare message.
         It's pathetic. But very scary.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            And more of them will vote for the winner of So You Think You Can Dance?

            replyreport
2. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Clinton was awesome, as usual! I voted for him and even attended a fundraiser where I met him and Gore, along with the wives. Clinton is smart, but he doesn't speak like an elitist. He does his best to explain things. I didn't agree with everything he said, and I was a little confused when he talked about how terrible it was for W to increase the debt, even though Obama has followed in Bush's footsteps. I do somewhat agree with some of the news commenters, though (no, not on FOX). Will Clinton's help make Obama look weak? I'm pretty happy with the real Romney - not so much with the TP'd version. lol
   
   CNN just announced that some of the claims in Clinton's speech aren't true. They're going to give specifics soon.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No habee!  Tell me it isn't true!  A politician that lied?  And an ex president that didn't have sex to boot?  Surely not!

      replyreport
   2. 82

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Clinton's the biggest policy wonk we've had for president in generations. You can be sure he used some rhetorical spin, but I will be pretty surprised if they can find any flat-out lies. To wit: the Associated Press fact check is reduced to bringing up Monica Lewinsky to pad out its fact check article on the speech. FactCheck.org, meanwhile, pretty much threw up its hands and said "we got nothin."

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         WaPo didn't seem to have a problem:
         
         http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
         
         
         FactCheck says Bill exaggerated:
         
         http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Fact Check:  "Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out."
            
            Hub Forum Check found that Habee exaggerated a bit about FactCheck's conclusions wrt Clinton speech which was an out-of-the-ball park home run.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You believe the convicted liar?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I believe that Ralph is referring to Fact check. Keep up Repairguy.

                  replyreport
            2. 93

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph, you obviously didn't read the articles I linked to. Here's part of the one from WaPo:
               
               "The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.
               
               By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.
               
               But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
               
               Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.
               
               In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)
               
               Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”
               
               The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program."
               
               So WaPo FactChecker is calling Bill's claims "simply not accurate,"  a "major budget gimmick," and a "dubious claim." Only in La-La Land could those descriptions be interpreted as true.
               I said FactCheck called Bill's claims "exaggerations," which they did. That was the EXACT word they used - not MY interpretation. I don't appreciate your practically calling me a liar, Ralph. It's all in the articles, in black and white.
               
               As for Bill's speech, I thought it was great! I already said that - you must have missed that, too. lol. Get some new glasses!

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I did read the article from Fact Check that you mischaracterized and linked.
                  
                  I repeat: You neglected to mention the conclusion: "But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out." Fact Check.
                  
                  I did not read the WaPO article you linked.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Did FC refer to Clinton's "exaggerations"? I said, "FactCheck said Bill exaggerated." That's what they said. WaPo is the link that referred to Clinton's claims as "not accurate" and "dubious." I didn't say FC said Clinton lied.

                     replyreport
3. 74

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   It was infinity times better than W's endorsement of Romney!

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      True dat!

      replyreport
4. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

   I haven't yet watched it, but I've seen a few excerpts this morning and read about reactions from the right and left.  Sounds like he did a great job for Obama.
   
   Big Dog or Empty Chair?   LOL

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Big dog, yes.
      But empty words, sadly.
      
      http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/ … act-Check/

      replyreport
5. 69

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   Alan Blinder sums up our election choices in today's Wall Street Journal:
   
   http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … g=reno-wsj
   
   "It is by now a commonplace that this looks like a watershed election. By choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate, instead of shaking the Etch A Sketch toward the center, Mitt Romney embraced an economic vision that differs radically from the rough politico-economic consensus in the United States since Franklin Roosevelt. Barack Obama accepts that broad consensus and, like many other presidents, has sought to deepen it.
   
   "The Rooseveltian consensus embodied three main elements: a modest social safety net to protect vulnerable Americans from some of the downsides of unfettered markets, Keynesian-style policies to shorten recessions, and a progressive tax-transfer system to mitigate income inequality (albeit only slightly).
   
   "The two political parties certainly had their differences between the 1930s and the 2000s, but the broad consensus often had bipartisan support. Thus Eisenhower built public infrastructure; Nixon declared himself a Keynesian and established the Environmental Protection Agency; both Reagan and Bush II acted like Keynesians; Bush I promised a "kinder, gentler nation" and Bush II expanded Medicare—unfortunately, without a way to pay for it..."

   replyreport
6. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

   Just watched Clinton's speech.  The Big Dog is still top dog!  Some of my favorite moments:
   
   “I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside but who burns for America on the inside.”
   
   “When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good, but what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation.”
   
   “One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army, and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. Now he, President Obama, appointed several members of his cabinet, even though they supported Hillary in the primary. Heck, he even appointed Hillary.”
   
   “President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”

   replyreport
   1. 59

      moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I agree!!!I loved his speech.  Very awesome!!!!!

      replyreport
7. 64

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   His speech was to the point and he communicates them well!
   
   O needs to top that tonite

   replyreport
   1. 59

      moneyfairyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Most definitely.

      replyreport
8. 0

   DigbyAdamsposted 12 years ago

   If Romney had originally wanted to be known as a conservative he would have moved to Utah after the Olympics and been governor there. Instead he chose the most liberal state in the country. Then he chose a partnership with Ted Kennedy to create the most liberal health-care system in the country. Have any of you thought of just why he did this? What was he thinking? Anyways I loved the Clinton speech. I'm voting for Obama.

   replyreport
9. 78

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   Just listened to the whole speech. Excellent as usual. He laid it right on the line...

   replyreport
10. 69

    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    John Kerry just hit the ball out of the park at the Dem convention. He quite effectively praised Obama and cut Romney down to size, especially on his dumb comments on foreign policy.  The talking heads said it was the best speech Kerry's ever given, including his own nomination acceptance speech.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       How ironic that the exact same criticisms leveled (mercilessly) against Kerry in 2004 -- elitist (he windsurfs!), too wealthy, not warm, out of touch with Americans -- are now being vehemently defended in Romney.
       

       replyreport
11. 72

    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years ago

    Clinton did a much better job of endorsing Monica Lewinsky.
    
    With Obama, Bill Clinton took 48 minutes to do what he was supposed to do in 28 minutes.
    
    With Monica, Bill Clinton took . . . oh, just ask Hillary, she took the videos.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Are you aware we're living in 2012, not the 1990s?

       replyreport
       1. 72

          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Are you aware Bill Clinton gave the keynote address for Obama?
          
          You got one guy who wasted my money back then (who paid for the services of the intern?) talking up the guy who is wasting my money now.

          replyreport
12. 0

    screamingposted 12 years ago

    President Obama, President Clinton and the DNC hit a home run! Republicans? Not so good!

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       What - you didn't LOVE Eastwood's rendition of Bob Newhart??

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Pretty amazing when "chair" is the buzzword one week,  "arithmetic" the next!
          Only in America!
          

          replyreport
13. 93

    habeeposted 12 years ago

    I have to admit that the DNC looked A LOT more fun than the RNC. Clinton was awesome. Even Joe stayed on script, and I thought Michelle's speech was inspiring. I wasn't so impressed by Obama's speech, though. It sounded too much like his 2007 speech. But hey, Clinton would be a tough act to follow! I think Obama will get a nice bounce. This just might seal the deal. CNN says the first debate will prolly be the real turning point, and Mitt isn't consistent with his debating skills. I do think, however, Ryan will out-debate Biden, but how many people watch the VP debate?

    replyreport