Redstate

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

Obama isn't going to win the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton is. But it still seems highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Most Democrats look back on the Clinton days with nostalgia, a time when the economy was growing, the stock market was booming and the nation was not at war.

Now, I realize that this narrative leaves out some, let's say, inconvenient truths, like the fact that Bush inherited a recession and the collapse of the Dot Com bubble from Clinton and the fact that Bush inherited a inadequate national security strategy and a too small military.

But a large portion of the country will probably buy this idea that 5 percent unemployment and 3 percent inflation is a recession. Sad, but true.

Bush did not inherit a recesssion from Clinton -- if you use the common definition of one as two quarters of declining GDP. But even if you use YOUR definition.

But a large portion of the country will probably buy this idea that 5 percent unemployment and 3 percent inflation is a recession. Sad, but true.

Unemployment was around 4.3% at the end of Clinton's term, and inflation was under 4%.

Clinton left office in January 2001. Throughout 2000, the huge debate in economic policy circles was about how to avoid the economy-damaging effects of too much budget surplus. This, even as the stock market was in a state of continuous decline from April 2000 onwards.

When Bush was finally declared the winner in December 2000, this was the content of the policy advice he was getting from Greenspan and others.

So what happened next? When tax season started in April 2001, the stream of revenue to the Treasury ran far below projections. It turns out that the budget was running well into deficit, whereas everyone from Alan Greenspan on down had been expecting surplus.

This was all based on the slowdown in economic activity that took place in 2000, while Clinton was President.

There's a lot to recommend the theory that Clinton's much-touted budget surpluses actually stemmed from the stock market bubble, which in turn was probably caused by the Federal Reserve's efforts to prevent a recession after the 1997 Asian Flu crisis. When the stock market bubble ended in 2000, the surpluses (and the rapid economic activity) ended at the same time.

As far as today is concerned, I've argued that we've been in an economic slowdown that is already nearly over. Yet the Democratic candidates will be telling you all summer and fall that we're about to replay the Great Depression.

A large portion of the country will indeed buy the idea that we're in a recession, if they believe the people that are carrying the message. Sad, but true.

Yes, the economy was slowing down, but the point still remains, Bush did not inherit a recession.

The economy today has slowed down recently, but we're not in a recession today any more than we were when Bush entered office.

I'm just a nitpicker for details. You can claim the economy was heading to a probable recession when Bush took over, but certainly not that he inherited one. That's just not factually correct.

You agree that the economy was slowing down when Bush entered office. If it's meaningful at all to blame a President of the US for the performance of the economy, then you'll blame Clinton for that.

If you're going to insist on the old-fashioned definition of a recession (two consecutive quarters of contraction in output, measured across the whole economy rather than by sector), then I'll agree with you.

Proceeding on the assumption that this definition is the nit you've been picking: it's not nearly as meaningful as it once was. Decades ago, a contraction in industrial output usually coincided with huge and painful job losses. That doesn't happen any more.

If you're going to assign political responsibility for economic policy, what really matters is what happens in the several quarters before a contraction in output actually becomes measurable. Recessions are usually detected after the fact.

In the case of Bush's first recession, the seeds for it were sown while Bill Clinton was President, and they were exacerbated by 9/11.

I agree with what you said, but if you want to call that a recession then it's harder to say to the Democrats that we are not in a recession today -- which me very well be according to your definition of one.

The President isn't the only entity affecting an economy. A lot of it is out of his control. Clinton didn't create the surpluses of the 90s, a large part of it was the result of the dot-com boom and people taking gains on their stocks and paying taxes on them. But then the flip side of that is also true -- if he isn't to be given credit for the economy of the 90s, he certainly wasn't responsible for the bubble bust in 2000. Now yes, he could have helped the situation a lot by cutting taxes.

Similar situation today. A lot of the current drag on the economy is due to much higher energy prices over past three years. You can't just triple the price of something as important as energy that touches everything in our economy without expecting it to take some sort of hit until the markets can correct it, but Bush hasn't helped it through his reckless spending either. And yes, that's non-defense spending.

Any way, as much as I enjoy a good political debate on a Sunday this is probably approaching a threadjack here, which was not my intention, so I'll let you have the last word if you wish and I'll kindly shut up.

Cheers!

"Throughout 2000, the huge debate in economic policy circles was about how to avoid the economy-damaging effects of too much budget surplus."

It's indisputable that President Bush figured out how to take care of that problem. In fact, a little less of a solution might have been preferable.

i think we both could use one (or two)

(i'm not in st. louis, but i'll be there with you in spirit when the bourbon trickles over the ice...)

"Do the day's work."

1. I'm pretty sure Pejman agrees with you on who we'd rather run against

2. Language.

HTML Help for Red Staters

We're not going to stop talking about the truth, as we see it, just because the truth is at times inconvenient for what our goals are.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"We're not going to stop talking about the truth, as we see it..."

How refreshing to see someone at Redstate acknowledge that it's the "truth, as we see it..." and not the Truth as it exists independent of space and time.

I don't think I've seen *that* but it sure would be a smart move for Obama to target the Republicans who, like me, would crawl over broken glass to vote for Bernie Sanders if it would stop HRC from taking the White House.

"Obama reaching out to Republicans" means "Obama will graciously permit Republicans to vote for him."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"Do the day's work."

Maybe he thinks his message of 'hope,' 'change,' and a weak, accomodationist foreign policy will resonate with Republicans sick of President Bush accomodating Hamas and Fatah.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Obama's use of hope is about as trite as a high school senior's use of the word "society." Hillary, well, she's Hillary. And with trillions in derivatives, more than the size of our economy, that are worthless, you can be guaranteed that things are going to get dicey economically, in which case it's not a matter of if a dem will be president, but which one. Remember Bill's "It's the economy, stupid" remark? Anyone could have made that statement, he came at the right time(end of 92 recession). Things are looking similar, except the scope is larger and deflation is a risk. That should scare everyone. So the question is, who is the least of the evils? Hillary has an axe to grind over the 90's, once she's in charge, she will use every ounce of power to crush anyone in her path. Hillary and Obama are the same on most of the issues if you look at them, hence why the race is so close. Hillary is more pro-Israel compared to Obama, some of his advisors have interesting views to say the least. I'm open minded but by the looks of things it seems like Hillary would become quasi-dictator.

both will flame and fail spectacularly, but for different reasons. Obama because he is a Jimmy Carter type dumbass who talks good, but doesn't really know what the hell is going on.

Hillary will flame out because she cannot change who she is. She would be another Richard Nixon, paranoid, grandiose, and perpetually peed off.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If people won't vote for Obama because of his middle name we have a long way to go in America. The fact that you use his middle name in your next comment shows you also using it as some sort of attack. I don't know about you but I was given my middle name, and my first name, and my last name, and the fact that if people...

1) Think that his middle name will hurt him in general election shows that they believe there is a very racist element still America
2) If people do vote against a person because of his middle name it shows their stupidity and is a disgrace to be an American.

I personally have high ideals for Americans in the South and the North and think the vast majority of us have gotten past thinking being black makes you inferior or being of a different religion does too (sadly I guess haven't a parent of a different religion is a sin to some people). But, you maybe very right that people will not vote for someone with Muslim heritage. But, I pray you are wrong and I hope that you don't use his middle name as some sort of attack because it shows your disrespect to the person. I may not again with everything Obama says, but he is a civil servant and you need to show respect.

-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'

His name is Obama. Make a note of it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Recent Redstate efforts to purge the rhetoric of such tactics as referring to candidates by names and plays on names that appeal to ignorance and prejudice are commendable.

Quite apart from the lameness of your reference to Obama's middle name, your argument is wanting. It turns out that the only part of the electorate that Clinton came out ahead with is white women. Obama did much better with whites than Clinton did with African Americans and much better with women than Clinton did with men. The "black only" victory can easily be turned against Clinton -- white women only.

Obama won overwhelmingly among both black men and women. Edwards took white men. That makes it look like Clinton is the one marginalized.

The Clintons' strategy in South Carolina (and more generally of recent weeks) is resulting in voluminous negative press for both Bill and Hillary, who can no longer be discussed separately -- a calculated development that HRC may well come to regret, even if she does win the nomination.

The Clintons are demonstrating a sad political reality: you don't have to be a racist to appeal to racism in a campaign.

I wish Obama, and Hillary, and the GOP candidates were like JFK on immigration. JFK wanted to get rid of the supposedly evil national origins quota system that was in place from the 1920s to 1065, but he did not favor any significant increase in the overall levels of immigration. Indeed, the 1965 bill that his loathsome brother helped pass was approved of in part based on the promise that it would not result in an increase in immigration, but it didn't exactly work out that way.

Obama, as well as Hillary and the GOP candidates, is a mass immigration enthusiast. I believe he proposed (or maybe he just took to the floor to support it, I really don't remember) an amendment that would protect and maintain unending chain migration to the McCain-Kennedy bill. But who can blame him, really, as he is smart enough to know which party benefits from mass immigration. As to his own political ambitions, I'm sure he realizes that even if it is true that Hispanics are leary of supporting a black candidate vs Hillary, that will not hold true if its a black man vs a Republican in the general election.