Bill Clinton Nominates Obama For Re-Election At Dnc

[Chicog]

Honestly, I don't know how Obama got even a little bounce. Except for Clinton, the convention was a disaster

Yeah, but the commentator who said that Clinton was like a really good lawyer trying to defend a guilty client was spot on. It's the wretched economy that counts!

You know, I can't say for sure that the policies of Romney/Ryan can fix the economy, but it is already a well-established, undeniable fact that Obama's policies have failed. All the nostalgic speeches from Bill Clinton won't change that.

By the same token, you can't say for sure that the policies of Romney/Ryan wouldn't actually be more damaging to the economy then?

[Ulysses G.]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

Honestly, I don't know how Obama got even a little bounce. Except for Clinton, the convention was a disaster

Yeah, but the commentator who said that Clinton was like a really good lawyer trying to defend a guilty client was spot on. It's the wretched economy that counts!

You know, I can't say for sure that the policies of Romney/Ryan can fix the economy, but it is already a well-established, undeniable fact that Obama's policies have failed. All the nostalgic speeches from Bill Clinton won't change that.

By the same token, you can't say for sure that the policies of Romney/Ryan wouldn't actually be more damaging to the economy then?

If Option #1 is a shotgun blast to the head, I'll choose Option #2. It may be worse, but I already know 100% I won't like the first one very much.

[Jingthing]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Don't be daft!

Edited September 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Nice cliche. But Obama has had one term only to fix the madness his predecessor left behind.

[Chicog]

If Option #1 is a shotgun blast to the head, I'll choose Option #2. It may be worse, but I already know 100% I won't like the first one very much.

Yes, but those aren't your choices, are they?

[samran]

just being a cynic for a sec, did anyone ever think that it might not be good strategy for the President to give 'too good' a speech. We know he can knock them out of the ballpark if he needs to, but in this environment, doing so would have been counter productive and invited even more 'all talk no action comparisons'.

Anyway, back to Bill. The best speech I have ever seem him give was at the Labour Party conference. Would have been 2003 or 2004 and the party were angry at Blair for taking them to war with Bush. The crowd was hostile to Blair and there was plenty of talk of dumping him.

Bill got up and gave a wonderful defense of Bush, the war and Blair....and he'd managed to turn that crowd - an angry crowd if ever I have seen one.

I think he played exactly the same role this week - but for a national audience.

[Credo]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Not necessarily. If you remember Tricky Dick's motto was: "Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in '72."

I even had a bumper sticker with that on.

[Ulysses G.]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Nice cliche. But Obama has had one term only to fix the madness his predecessor left behind.

If you say so, but he promised to fix the economy or be a ""one-term proposition" and it is time to pay up .

[Chicog]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Nice cliche. But Obama has had one term only to fix the madness his predecessor left behind.

If you say so, but he promised to fix the economy or be a ""one-term proposition" and it is time to pay up .

And again: How do you know what state the economy would have been in if McCain and Palin had been in charge of it?

I suppose it all boils down to your definition of "fixed". He has set out quite clear targets to reduce the deficit and the debt. Romney appears to have only set out targets to give the wealthy tax cuts and raise the defence budget (more so than has been requested), and logic tells us that in order to balance the economy he's going to have to slash the budget to fund it. The question is, which will benefit the nation rather than a few individuals?

I only hope the questions put forward at the debates ask hard question of both candidates, and that they both give clear, concise answers. Only in this way can people decide which one would benefit America - and the world - the most.

And let's not forget that Romney himself has admitted the economy is improving under Obama.

[Ulysses G.]

Sure he did.

[jbrain]

Nobody can tell the future, but if a sports coach fails over and over again you fire him and get a new one or you can be pretty sure that you will never win the season.

Nice cliche. But Obama has had one term only to fix the madness his predecessor left behind.

If you say so, but he promised to fix the economy or be a ""one-term proposition" and it is time to pay up .

I'm pretty sure his predecessor told a few more blatant lies made a few more promises that he didn't follow up with, but of course that is the past.

So back to the future, I'm surprised that nobody yet has mentioned the promises the Republican candidates are currently making, from which everyone already knows TODAY that they will not be able nor willing to keep them.

[Chicog]

So "I will repeal Obamacare" Romney today said he'll keep parts of it.

Politicians react to polls in campaigns.

They are both doing soundbites. I think that says more about the American system than it does about either candidate.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney has always said repeal it and replace it with something better. I am all for keeping the best parts of Obamacare and getting rid of all the stuff that was rammed through the house with tricks, bribes, lies and backroom deals.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Romney has always said repeal it and replace it with something better. I am all for keeping the best parts of Obamacare and getting rid of all the stuff that was rammed through the house with tricks, bribes, lies and backroom deals.

Mr. Romney won't explain what the something "better" is.

Perhaps if he was more specific, people would be more receptive.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, he was specific about protecting preexisting conditions and young adults staying on their parent's insurance.

Unlike Obamacare, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes. It does not regulate healthcare providers and private insurance companies. It works with them. It was only 70 pages long (as opposed to 3,000). It had bipartisan support. Maybe he will base his new plan on that.

[Jingthing]

Romney has always said repeal it and replace it with something better. I am all for keeping the best parts of Obamacare and getting rid of all the stuff that was rammed through the house with tricks, bribes, lies and backroom deals.

Ridiculous! You mean the "stuff" that is needed to PAY for it like MANDATES, which was Romney's decent conservative idea that he himself implemented in the large state of Massachusetts? Beware! He is telling lies to get elected. What he is promising, access for preexisting conditions, is impossible without the full plan. Yeah, he will "give" access now, the freedom for sick dying people earning 10K USD to buy an annual plan costing privately 80K USD. Fabulous. What a heartless cynical party Romney now leads. Edited September 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Well, he was specific about protecting preexisting conditions and young adults staying on their parent's insurance.

Unlike Obamacare, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes. It does not regulate healthcare providers and private insurance companies. It works with them. It was only 70 pages long (as opposed to 3,000). It had bipartisan support. Maybe he will base his new plan on that.

Don't run from reality. Romneycare was based on MANDATES. The core of Obamacare. Now Romney is against mandates for a national plan. As Clinton said, the arithmetic does not add up. He is lying. He can't possibly offer anything realistic for access that Obamacare does without MANDATES. He knows some things in Obamacare are popular and he is now down in the polls and desperate to tell any lies he can to scrape out a win. Let's hope American voters aren't so stupid as to buy those lies. Edited September 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

[Jingthing]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

That's very misleading propaganda. Romneycare was based on mandates. Romney is now openly against mandates for the national plan. No, the republican convention, especially the Ryan, proved the republicans are the champions of the lying marathon.

[Jingthing]

As Clinton said, the arithmetic does not add up. He is lying.

Agreed. He did not tell the truth about Monica Lewsinski either.

Who cares? Americans don't care. That was sex. His current approval rate is massive and his speech endorsing Obama was one of the best and most history changing influential political speeches in our lifetimes, and I reckon you know that too. Edited September 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Clinton played the defence attorney part well, but Obama is still guilty on all charges of a pathetic economy and voters will not forget that in November.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

He played the defence attorney well, but Obama is still guilty of the chrages of a pathetic economy.

So what the people need now is a Richie McRich, give it all to the rich only, Outsourcer in Chief, is that it?

BTW, that propaganda meme about defense attorney is from Dick Morris on Fox News. That man is such a sleazeball. Your side can get as dirty as they like now, the speech is in the can and Americans loved it and correctly believed it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

that propaganda meme about defense attorney is from Dick Morris on Fox News. That man is such a sleazeball.

Dick Morris was a long-time Clinton advisor. You might have a point.

This is why Obama is going to lose Ohio.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

And Mr. Romney left the Commonwealth with a massive deficit.

[Chicog]

Well, he was specific about protecting preexisting conditions and young adults staying on their parent's insurance.

Unlike Obamacare, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes. It does not regulate healthcare providers and private insurance companies. It works with them. It was only 70 pages long (as opposed to 3,000). It had bipartisan support. Maybe he will base his new plan on that.

"Obamacare" was put together by the team that put together Romney's Health care plan.

[Chicog]

Clinton played the defence attorney part well, but Obama is still guilty on all charges of a pathetic economy and voters will not forget that in November.

I suppose you are of the view that if you use the word "pathetic" enough, people will believe your incorrect assertion that it has been reported in the news that way.

The problem is, even Romney has said the economy is better now that it was when Obama took over. Although in front of baying crowds of fans, of course he always lies and says it's worse.

You'll have to do better than that.

[Jingthing]

Here is the actual TRUTH about Romney's position. In reality, he is not even for the ability of sick people to buy insurance if they don't ALREADY have insurance. So it is very, very misleading to suggest Romney wants to keep Obamacare provisions protecting people with preeexisting conditions. He is ONLY for non-discrimination against sick people with CONTINUING, EXISTING insurance.

UPDATE: In reference to pre-existing conditions, a Romney aide responds, “Governor Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,” and refers me to these remarks Romney made in Florida in June:

I also want to make sure that people can’t get dropped if they have a preexisting condition. … So let’s say someone has been continuously insured and they develop a serious condition and let’s say they lose their job or they change jobs, they move and they go to a new place. I don’t want them to be denied insurance because they’ve got some preexisting condition. So we’re going to have to make sure that the law we replace Obamacare with assures that people who have a preexisting condition, who’ve been insured in the past are able to get insurance in the future so they don’t have to worry about that condition keeping them from getting the kind of health care they deserve.

That's logical because Romney intends to TRASH the mandate and TRASH expanded Medicaid so there is no possible way he could pay for actually assuring coverage for all Americans including the already sick. Romney's policies if fully passed would lead to the premature deaths of millions of Americans and Obamacare fully implemented would prevent those early deaths. Yes, folks, health care policy is life and death. We all die yes but GOVERNMENT POLICIES humanely implemented can have fantastic results as proven again and again in the more civilized nations.

Of course it is quite clear Romney wants to FOOL the American people that he is actually FOR the more popular aspects of Obamacare and against the "bad" parts that actually pay for it. This is going to be a great issue to see Obama tear Romney apart in the debates. Let the truth out and the winner will be clear.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Again, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes.

As to lies, the Obama campaign is far ahead on that front.

And Mr. Romney left the Commonwealth with a massive deficit.

According to PolitiFact, your statement is rated as "False".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitt Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

Red, White and Blue Fund on Friday, February 24th, 2012 in a campaign ad

Ad accuses Mitt Romney of leaving 'Massachusetts $1 billion dollars in debt'

...and later in the article...

Our ruling

The ad says Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."

That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways. The Red, White and Blue fund cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates. Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.

Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year. And in keeping with that requirement, Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months.

We rate the claim False.

http://www.politifac...chusetts-1-bil/

[chuckd]

Well, he was specific about protecting preexisting conditions and young adults staying on their parent's insurance.

Unlike Obamacare, Romneycare was funded by existing revenues and did not raise taxes. It does not regulate healthcare providers and private insurance companies. It works with them. It was only 70 pages long (as opposed to 3,000). It had bipartisan support. Maybe he will base his new plan on that.

"Obamacare" was put together by the team that put together Romney's Health care plan.

Care to enlighten us with some links here?

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) claims he wrote it. But then he says he never read it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libby Residents Relate Gains, Drawbacks of Asbestos Aid

Residents question health care bill, call for additional doctor at clinic

By Dan Testa, 08-24-10

LIBBY – Though the visit by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to this Lincoln County community was brief, it is possible she gained some insights Monday afternoon into what residents here want and need – and how those forces are opposed in some ways.

From the article:

"Judy Matott asked Baucus if he would work to improve Libby’s image, and then asked him and Sebelius, “if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing.”

Baucus replied that if Libby residents assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for “essentially” writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”

More here: http://www.flatheadb...stos_aid/19253/