From the 12/12 NYTIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
...it’s a measure of Mr. Obama’s uncertainty in this moment of peril that he would summon not only the spirit but also the person of Mr. Clinton, whom he disparaged during the 2008 campaign for small-ball politics that made him less of a transformational president than Ronald Reagan. Lately, Mr. Obama has been reading accounts of Mr. Clinton’s presidency.
Does anybody remember this Obama pearl of wisdom?
"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."
I resented that crap then and I resent it now. Reagan transformed America into a country that no longer believes in arithmetic; that believes tax cuts lead to balanced budgets; that believes that markets never make mistakes. That government has no role in making sure Wall Street thieves are regulated. That government workers are the enemies of ordinary Americans. That defense spending isn't really spending (etc, etc).
"...the country was ready for it"? Everybody in America is ALWAYS ready for a free lunch!
Either Obama was being cynical, trying to appeal to the people who love the memory of the sainted Ronald Reagan, or he believes in transformation through lies and misinformation. I think/hope the former.
But according to Obama, Clinton wasn't quite good enough -- I guess he didn't make up economic fantasies well enough.... So now Barack, 2 years into your Presidency, is Bill Clinton still in the same category as Richard Nixon?
Now it is Obama who seems like the UN-transformational President. One obvious example is the fact that he is relying on Bill Clinton to help save his Presidency [!?!]. And, lest we forget, Obama had advantages that Bill Clinton never had. For one thing, Clinton won a minority of the votes in 1992 (& 1996) because of Ross Perot's involvement, while Obama won almost 54% of the popular vote. For another, Obama had 60 votes in the US Senate (for a while, anyway) while Clinton had no more than 57.
And yet it is Clinton who looks like the far more transformational figure right now. He transformed America from a $290B debt to a $100B surplus -- cleaning up the economic mess left by Ronald Reagan. He transformed our country into the Internet nation. He transformed the military, cutting its size by 25%. He transformed the country into one where the rich pay their fair share (39.6% rate). He transformed the overall crime rate so that it declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record. He helped transformed Europe into the post Cold War era, by saving the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo. Clinton had a lot of smaller accomplishments as well (e.g. the earned income credit)
Obama has the health care reform as his signature achievement. The financial reform was obviously necessary, but what President is going to look at that as a crucial achievement? Hell, even the Republicans knew there was a need to rein in some of the crazies. I believe that saving the U.S. automobile industry will be seen as one of the best things Obama did in the White House.
The most positive thing I can say for Obama right now is that after 2 years in the White House, Clinton was in bad political shape too (in part because of the tax increase).
The worst thing I can say about Obama's position right now is that if/when the economy comes back, it is:
A) Likely to come back pretty weakly due to fat-cat tax cuts, a la Bush II
B) Going to seem to validate idiot theories about supply-side economics
Such a transformation, eh?
The latest thing coming out of the White House is "tax reform", an idea doomed to failure from the start, given Republican control of the House. And if anything does pass, it will be horrible, larded with breaks for big business and billionaires.
But what's worse is that Obama has never even tried to sell the notion of shared sacrifice before, and now, after giving fat-cat billionaires continued tax breaks, I don't see how he does it at all. Ever!
As I wrote in my last diary "When America was Lost", as a result of Ronald Reagan, politicians now believe that their mission is to bring no-cost toys and goodies to the American people, because if they ever ask for sacrifice, they will lose the next election (as Bush 41 did, and the 1994 Congressional Dems did).
So it looks like Barack Obama will have to be satisfied with the following legacy:
A) Being the 1st black President
B) Doing a non-transformational "pretty-good", capable job of getting us out of the Great Recession[imagine if the 1st black President was an incompetent f-up? It would be horrendous]...
I can no longer see any way for him to change America in any meaningful way. But it isn't Schadenfreude time for me. I contributed to Obama's campaign (as you all did), and I thought Obama would be a better candidate than Hillary [he was], and almost as good a President. It is more like depression time, because Obama blew the opportunity to be great in a particularly UN-transformational way.