Should Obama campaign like Bill Clinton did?

[Purch]

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- The mini-civil war that we've seen play out in the Democratic Party over the past few weeks isn't just a case of a dispute about tactics. It's a sign of a deeper division.

Former President Bill Clinton, who has been campaigning for President Obama and taking on the GOP, went off-script several times. Soon after Obama rolled out his ads attacking Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital and then as Massachusetts governor, Clinton took issue with these kinds of attacks and extolled Romney's "sterling business career."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/opinion/zelizer-clinton-obama/index.html

[WhyteRain]

I already answered this question nearly TWO years ago:

This comment at Salon.com, dated 07/15/2011 and quoting comment dated 07/29/2010 to an article by former Labor Sec. Robert Reich and directed to him:

I already answered this question a YEAR ago

Robert, pay attention this time:

"Can Obama pull a Clinton on the GOP?"

    When the GOP wins big this November, Obama, unlike a WASP Southerner like Bill Clinton, cannot "triangulate" against the leftwing of his party, because he inescapably embodies the leftwing of his party. (emphasis in original)

link

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Triangulation = losing my vote

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Bill Clinton is so overrated it's not even funny.

[WhyteRain]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

The MSM has forced the GOP to nominate another Tom Dewey, so that part is already in place.  Even the names are similar:  Mitt Romney, Tom Dewey.  I've said for years that in 2012 Obama can only beat a GOP liberal, and I think the MSM realized that, too.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

Very true

[WhyteRain]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

Thanks for this interesting map -- but what can it mean?  Surely it can't mean tenants in some places have to work 88 hours a week to afford an apartment.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

Thanks for this interesting map -- but what can it mean?  Surely it can't mean tenants in some places have to work 88 hours a week to afford an apartment.

The rent is TOO DAMN HIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

Thanks for this interesting map -- but what can it mean?  Surely it can't mean tenants in some places have to work 88 hours a week to afford an apartment.

It might be hours a month. At what wage I don't know.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I crunched some numbers and it looks like I need only ~57 hours a month to afford my apartment (after taxes)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

Thanks for this interesting map -- but what can it mean?  Surely it can't mean tenants in some places have to work 88 hours a week to afford an apartment.

It might be hours a month. At what wage I don't know.

It's hours a week, I believe.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The map is how many minimum wage hours per it takes to afford a single-room apartment.

[greenforest32]

The map is how many minimum wage hours per it takes to afford a single-room apartment.

I thought that map was for a two-bedroom unit?

http://nlihc.org/oor/2012
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2012-OOR-Min-Wage-Map.pdf

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Either way, the government has sat on their hands for years and done nothing about it.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The map is how many minimum wage hours per it takes to afford a single-room apartment.

I thought that map was for a two-bedroom unit?

http://nlihc.org/oor/2012
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2012-OOR-Min-Wage-Map.pdf

My mistake. Thanks.

[greenforest32]

Either way, the government has sat on their hands for years and done nothing about it.

If you're referring to high housing costs, I absolutely agree. Globally, probably trillions of dollars are extracted every year by private landowners. Why should they own that anymore than they should own energy and utilities? Public assets should be publicly owned.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Obama wants my vote, he needs to go full 1936 and welcome the hatred of the right.

[BaldEagle1991]

He has to, or otherwise.

[WhyteRain]

Either way, the government has sat on their hands for years and done nothing about it.

If you're referring to high housing costs, I absolutely agree. Globally, probably trillions of dollars are extracted every year by private landowners. Why should they own that anymore than they should own energy and utilities? Public assets should be publicly owned.

That creates a true 1%er society.  1% that controls the wealth (look up "nomenklatura") and the 99% that begs for it.  It makes for a true 1984 society of Party Members and proles.

[modify]  I guess you see yourself as a Party Member -- a member of the "mandarin class" of educated (or at least credentialed) "vanguard" leaders who through your control of "the commanding heights of the economy" are smart enough to create what's never been created before in world history?

[greenforest32]

Either way, the government has sat on their hands for years and done nothing about it.

If you're referring to high housing costs, I absolutely agree. Globally, probably trillions of dollars are extracted every year by private landowners. Why should they own that anymore than they should own energy and utilities? Public assets should be publicly owned.

That creates a true 1%er society.  1% that controls the wealth (look up "nomenklatura") and the 99% that begs for it.  It makes for a true 1984 society of Party Members and proles.

[modify]  I guess you see yourself as a Party Member -- a member of the "mandarin class" of educated (or at least credentialed) "vanguard" leaders who through your control of "the commanding heights of the economy" are smart enough to create what's never been created before in world history?

I like the part where you explained how the excessive executive compensation, the money flowing from ratepayers to shareholders that contribute nothing to the service, the jacking up of public prices in pursuit of private capital gains, and the basic private, for-profit ownership model that incentivizes increasing profit to the private owners at the expense of the utility of the service itself--all things that unnecessarily drive up the cost of utilities and housing--is more beneficial to the 99% than a non-profit, publicly (government) run system which has none of the aforementioned issues.

The right never seems to care about private costs.

[WhyteRain]

Either way, the government has sat on their hands for years and done nothing about it.

If you're referring to high housing costs, I absolutely agree. Globally, probably trillions of dollars are extracted every year by private landowners. Why should they own that anymore than they should own energy and utilities? Public assets should be publicly owned.

That creates a true 1%er society.  1% that controls the wealth (look up "nomenklatura") and the 99% that begs for it.  It makes for a true 1984 society of Party Members and proles.

[modify]  I guess you see yourself as a Party Member -- a member of the "mandarin class" of educated (or at least credentialed) "vanguard" leaders who through your control of "the commanding heights of the economy" are smart enough to create what's never been created before in world history?

I like the part where you explained how the excessive executive compensation, the money flowing from ratepayers to shareholders that contribute nothing to the service, the jacking up of public prices in pursuit of private capital gains, and the basic private, for-profit ownership model that incentivizes increasing profit to the private owners at the expense of the utility of the service itself--all things that unnecessarily drive up the cost of utilities and housing--is more beneficial to the 99% than a non-profit, publicly (government) run system which has none of the aforementioned issues.

The right never seems to care about private costs.

You could have said simply "Yes, I see myself as a Party Member of the future society.  The only thing wrong with Bell, Calif., officials receiving huge salaries for running a prole town is that the proles had anything to say about it.  And if I can't be a town official making $800,000 a year, at least I can be a lowly-Party Member who receives a salary and benefits twice as high as the proles we'll force to pay for it -- before I retire at age 48 with 100% of my salary as retirement pay.  Everyone today knows that a long career in government is a much surer path to the lifestyle of the rich and famous than a long career in business.  Look at Pres. Obama -- he was virtually broke 10 years ago; now he's in the 0.1%.  Look how his wife got a $317,000 salary for a no-work job when he was elected to office.  That's the American Dream, baby!

"That's why I'm going to claim that prole shareholders who invest their savings in utilities don't deserve a penny in return.  That's why I'm going to claim that Party Members and Public Officials have a much longer time horizon for their public-spiritedness than do prole owners and investors have for their capital investments.  PMPOs will think about what the proles will need 50, a 100 years from now, whereas private investors don't care what happens to their investments even next year!

"That's why I'm going to claim that the Ruling Class Party will always provide the proles superior products and services at lower costs -- look at housing."

Did I miss anything?  No, I think that recapsulates all of your arguments so far.  Let me know if you think otherwise or if you have more.

 

[Bull Moose Base]

Obama should triangulate between triangulation and partisanship.  As he did in his 2008 campaign and throughout his presidency.  Bill Clinton advised him to be more partisan this campaign.

[greenforest32]

Did I miss anything?  No, I think that recapsulates all of your arguments so far.  Let me know if you think otherwise or if you have more.

Nobody was talking about or defending a case of obvious local government corruption. You didn't justify anything with your red herring.

It's hilarious how some people think privatizing public services and driving up the average 'cost of living' to $10-25k+/year is a good thing.

I look forward to the publicly traded, for-profit dividend-paying police, fire, and transit agencies bringing us proles further efficiencies.

[Rooney]

Every Democratic incumbent (in fact, every embattled incumbent) should look to the campaign of one Harry S. Truman.

I notice that you as a poster are almost always correct in your statements. This is another example of this consistent trend.

2012 could easily be 1948 all over again. I do realize that the nation is hardly involved in a post-war boom but the Republican Party is once again playing the happy role of the do-nothing friend of the plutocracy. Truman showed that he did not care to sacrifice the "dignity of the office" to accuse Republicans of being fascists and poor haters. Any office that would let Bill Clinton and George W. Bush hold it is by no means a "dignified" office. President Obama needs to keep going for the jugular by accusing Republicans of hating poor people and the middle class and being friends to only the "malefactors of great wealth". This is the best type of campaign to run when your #1 opponents are the Koch Brothers and other billionaires. I think that if the Democrats keep this campaign theme going they will win the House back, keep the White House and stave off defeat in the Senate. Thus, I expect the Democrats, who are not good at winning elections, to try to campaign like Bill Clinton and lose in a landslide to the Republicans.