Here are brown nose cliffnotes:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/politics/clinton-speech-analysis/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
A rousing speech but full of inaccuracies IMO.
Transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/05/transcript-bill-clinton-speech-at-dnc/
A lot of things that he said are true, though - particularly stuff about Republicans being dysfunctional and trying to block Obama before anything else. Of course, I’m not sure if the situation would not be reversed if there was a Republican President.
The weird thing is that Clinton reputedly doesn’t actually like Obama, so it’s nice of him to go out and say all these things.
His speech was very persuasive. Which inaccuracies were you referring to? If you look at politifact or Washington Post Fact Checker or just do your own research; you’ll see that most of what he said was on point. He did enter into a few gray areas but most of what he said checks out.
The reason is Hillary is preparing for 2016. After 2008, Hillary was broke and likely in order to shore up her coffers she joined forces with Obama, gaining favor among Obama’s donors. Now an impassioned speech by Clinton backing Obama only strengthens her position in the DP.
i highly doubt hillary clintin was “broke”…i reckon she has milllions here and somewhere…
bu 2016 hillary clinton will be so old though…
Campaign coffers are different from personal wealth. Rich candidates could theoretically self-sponsor themselves, but it’s better if they can raise money from donors.
I meant more of the gray areas. Yes its true that Republicans are blindly blocking everything Obama proposes but to say the Democrats haven’t done that isn’t true. Both parties are to be blamed equally for our current political mess.
Plus he said that his policies didn’t show a real effect until his 2nd term when the US economy really started booming and how Obama has set the right foundation. NO he has not. (Well to be fair neither will Romney since I haven’t heard anything meaningful come out of his mouth so far)
I love Clinton as a orator. For all the praise Obama receives for his speaking abilities he doesn’t come close to Bill.
Clinton - and democrats in general - take way too much credit for job creation during the 90’s. A monkey in a suit could have been president and the economy would have still taken off thanks to the amazing technological advances. Easy money helped too.
At any rate, to say say more jobs have been created under democratic regimes compared to republican led economies, while true, is a terrific case of correlation vs causation. Sounds good to the idiot masses though.
Apparently, you need to consider whether Democrats or Republicans control the House or Senate, in addition to who is President. The economy is best when there is a mix. I forgot where the study is from, but it is probably on the internet somewhere.
It seems like we should also consider who is President before any particular term. Clinton says that Obama cannot be blamed for current circumstances, since he inherited these conditions from the previous President. Yet, he later attributes economic performance in any given term to the President who was in office at the time. This is a conflict of information.
Yes, I basically agree with the gist of Clinton’s speech, but I felt that that data is not necessarily as good as it sounds. It takes time for policies to work and have effects, so it’s very difficult to figure out who to attribute which jobs to, and how much Congressional legislation has to do with it.
A lot of this is just arguments about how to take credit and place blame. It’s not even a question of which argument is true, because it will be impossible to communicate that level of nuance to the public as a whole, it seems to be just a question of which argument sticks better.
True, but to be fair, he’s looking at change during the administration, which is more plausible. It’s a question of levels versus returns. Whether the data is raw data, or differenced data, or second differenced data.
Indeed, this is why I think the whole fact-checking thing is not objective. Clinton said under Democrats economy made x jobs and Republicans made y
^^^Agree. I think the biggest foreshadowing out of the speech is how the f’ the Reps are going to explain which loopholes in the tax code they intendto close. Debates are on Oct 3 and if they don’t put a name to which ones they are going to close then the Dems are free to tell the public that it will be x/y/z beloved loopholes. If they put a name on them…well, let’s just say I’d like to see that. I am long Dems after seeing the two conventions.
Totally agree with this. To say that one side is less responsible than the other for the political gridlock that is the Senate and House today would be inaccurate. All are to blame and we need change to get out of this quagmire.
Clinton killed it; I’m voting from him in November!
Can you write in candidates for Presidential elections? What if everyone writes Bill Clinton?
@Ohai, I know how bad you wanted to be Bill’s intern but sorry to disappoint you…
The twenty second amendment to the constitution says, “… Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”
What’s left for Obama to say? Once again, Clinton has shown he is the best public speaker of our time.
Is it me, or did it look like he had parkinson’s symptoms? His hand kept shaking each time he raised it.
By the way, loved the Reagan references:
" here they go again"
“are you better off today than 4 years ago” (in reverse).
I saw that too. He is getting up there. The quadruple bypass must have taken a lot out of him.