Political Animal
Blog
With Clinton’s Big Speech for Obama on tap tomorrow night, we’re seeing a resurgence of stories about the alleged tension between 42 and 44, and their followers.
Regular readers know that I am very skeptical of the ever-popular media meme of “Clintonians” being alienated from Obama. Some of those “Clintonians” are people like Dick Morris who are actual Republicans; others are Wall Street shills with a tangential relationship at best with the Democratic Party. The administration is loaded with actual “Clintonites,” needless to say. But this meme has fed directly into the Romney campaign’s constant efforts to treat Obama as a radical (or paleoliberal) who has abandoned Clinton’s wise “centrism” and deep affection for cutting deals with Republicans.
But having said all that, there is something to the charge that many people close to the Clintons have had some trouble warming up to Obama, and it’s not all just a matter of leftover resentments from the 2008 primaries.
In the September-October issue of the Washington Monthly, TNR reporter-researcher Simon van Zuylen-Wood takes a closer look at Clintonian attitudes towards Obama, talking to several of the former president’s intimates. And he concludes the tensions, such as they are, are based on stylistic, not substantive, differences between the two chief executives:
[Ed] Rendell — along with a halfdozen former Clinton officials I spoke to — agree with Obama’s policies, but argue that he’s failed to use the presidential bully pulpit to sell them to the public. According to Rendell, Obama let the GOP define down his foremost legislative achievements — health care reform and the stimulus — and paid the price in the 2010 midterm elections. “How many Americans know that more than 40 percent of the stimulus spending was for tax cuts?” Rendell writes. “Hardly any, because it was never explained to them.”
It’s a refrain I heard often. “There has been, among the Clinton people, a concern that [Obama] hasn’t been consistently effective at the bully pulpit,” one former member of Clinton’s senior staff told me. “Clinton has a unique ability to infuse policy arguments with real passion. And that energy has at times been lacking in this president.” Bill Galston, a Brookings scholar and former Clinton adviser, was harsher. “His apparent inability to turn his communication skills as a campaigner [into] campaign skills as a sitting president is his single biggest failure.” Added another official, who worked in both White Houses, “Obama ran a campaign that was about selling not a vision of government, but a vision of himself.” Four years later, he’s still not “campaigning on what he’s accomplished and what he’s done.”
But for the most part, genuine Clintonians are complaining about Obama’s communications skills precisely because they are passionately committed to his policies, or at least what his policies might accomplish if he could overcome Republican obstruction and marshal stronger public support. And like Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, most of them are trying to lend a hand:
I got the sense from the Clinton folks that they didn’t have a serious beef with Obama’s first-term performance. Rather, like Bubba himself, they’re backseat drivers who don’t want the newbie to wreck the car. “A lot of it is nostalgia,” says the official who worked in both White Houses. “Anyone you talk to that’s still in the immediate Clinton circle has no appreciation for the fact that not everybody is Bill Clinton.”
No question about that.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on September 04, 2012 11:54 AM:
Rendell has not been helpful. The less we hear from him the better.
boatboy_srq on September 04, 2012 12:07 PM:
[T]he ever-popular media meme of “Clintonians” being alienated from Obama... has fed directly into the Romney campaign’s constant efforts to treat Obama as a radical (or paleoliberal) who has abandoned Clinton’s wise “centrism” and deep affection for cutting deals with Republicans.
Shorter Romney on "Clintonians": They think TABMITWH, too.
It's amazing how the GOTea, after nearly two decades of nonstop Clinton-bashing, suddenly loves the Big Dog. It's as if Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and all the rest of the BS never happened, and they think Clinton as President was just peachy. Yet, if Clinton were President today, since his approaches were just that tad less conservative than Obama's, you know BLEEPing well they'd be just as obstructionist, just as adamant, and just as committed to finding fault with him as they are now with BHO.
Times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 YP 4th quarter 83 misprints, verify current issue
sjw on September 04, 2012 12:13 PM:
Gotta agree with Rendell et al. (indeed I've been saying the same for years): Obama has not used the bully pulpit to good effect and has not been a good salesperson for his policies. Not even now. For example, he could eviscerate Romney just by holding a daily news conference during which he gets into the specifics of his program proposals AND then challenging Romney to do the same. Either Romney takes the bait and fails utterly (this is inevitable) or Romney chickens out and does an automatic nosedive in public opinion.
MaryAnne on September 04, 2012 12:13 PM:
It's true, Obama hasn't used the bully pulpit. He should have and should, it would have/will counteract the onslaught of republican negative ads. He did lose control of the debate. It's like he just disappeared after the inauguration.
bluestatedon on September 04, 2012 12:16 PM:
Rendell is indeed an ass, but I completely agree with the view that Obama has done an extremely poor job of communicating what his administration has achieved. From a purely retail political standpoint, the notion that Obama is some sort of preternatural political genius is one of the more ridiculous memes that Democrats hold dear. Don't get me wrong, I happily voted for him in 08 and will do so again, and I think it's incredibly important for the country that he be relected. However, Rendell's point about how few people know that 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts is valid, and I think it's nothing other than political malpractice that the Obama team has allowed that to be the case. I still think that the Obama White House and national Democrats in general have yet to grasp how toxic the media environment is, and how thoroughly useless mainstream media "journalists" are. If they weren't so completey worthless, idiots like Stephanopolous and Schieffer and Gregory would have been pointing out for three years to their Republican guests what the facts of the stimulus are, but instead they sit there slack-jawed and glassy-eyed in their comfortable chairs and let the GOPers spew their lies and distortions with nary a word of correction.
Tom Q on September 04, 2012 12:23 PM:
1) Rendell is among the more useless allegedly-on-our-side pundits. He has a Slate-like contrarianism that always seem sfocused on what the president is doing wrong or could be doing better. It's quite rich to hear him complain about Obama's message discipline.
2) Obama would have "sold" his accomplishments better if the unemployment rate were 2-3% lower. Clinton's "mystical connection" with the public had a lot more to do with the tech-fueled economic boom than any speech he ever gave (same for Reagan; had he tried running for re-election in 1982, the "Teflon president" would never have appeard). If anything, the public has more real-time personal affection for Obama than they ever did for Clinton; Clinotn's beloved status is strictly after-the-fact.
c u n d gulag on September 04, 2012 12:23 PM:
Well, maybe the Clinton people aren't too happy that Obama accomplished more in 2 years, than Clinton did in 8 - and they were more populist things, like Health Care, Lily Ledbetter, ending DADT, and killing Osama bin Laden - so, maybe they should all just STFU!
What did they give us that was anywhere near that?
Starting DADT?
NAFTA?
Lobbing missiles at place bin Laden had just left?
And that great sop to Conservatives - Welfare Reform?
Don't get me wrong, Clinton was probably the best President we've had since LBJ, and he handled the Bosnian situation beautifully, but in my opinion, his record is far less progressive than Obama's - and he had 8 YEARS!
boatboy_srq on September 04, 2012 12:32 PM:
@sjw, MaryAnne & bluestatedon:
Please explain how, in a world where even the New York Times (not exactly a Conservatist bastion of propaganda) can lead a fact-based refutation of Romney's attacks with "Democrats Say U.S. Is Better Off Than Four Years Ago", how any President could make the effective use of the bully pulpit you demand without state ownership (and Executive Branch control) of the media.
When we're stuck with "he said / he said," "both sides do it," "fair and balanced" journalism, there's only so much "bully pulpit" to be had.
Rendell is whinging that the media hasn't followed all of Obama's pronouncements and hasn't fact-checked the GOTea's propaganda with any sort of reliability or objectivity. The speeches, public statements, press conferences, radio addresses, Podcasts etc are all there for the taking. Instead, we've had nothing but Republicans and Blue Dogs presented to the public as talking heads, and naturally the bulk of Obama's public statements have been lost. In an environment like this one you can be as big and loud and strong a proponent of policy you like, and still get lost in the noise generated by an opposition determined to oppose whatever you present and a journalism community too scared of losing their access to The Scoop to tell the truth to the public.
I wish Obama had had a better public presence, but great noodly FSM people, we can't fall for a pundit complaining that the President hasn't been forceful enough defending his agenda when all of that pundits peers haven't bothered to listen.
Captcha: artivee dismiss. Indeed.
Gandalf on September 04, 2012 12:40 PM:
Listen I liked Bill Clinton like many did but let's just step back and look at how well he handled things. His utter and complete fiasco of the Monica Lewinski affair was a joke. Clinton did a number of good things as president but he certainly wasn't faced with anywhere near the trials and tribulations that Obama has. Two wars,staggering deficits left in place by Bush, an econmy on the verge of apocalyptic breakdown, 100% intransigence by the republican party and let's not forget that he's not a older white guy.
RMcD on September 04, 2012 12:40 PM:
Tom Q gets it right here. There's just very little political science research suggesting that the bully pulpit has a significant effect on public opinion or political outcomes generally. Presidents have an opportunity to persuade when an issue is new and undefined, but afterward the public makes up its own mind based on realities on the ground (see, Bush, G.W., Iraq War). Obama's problem relative to Clinton is the weakness of his economy relative to Clinton's, thanks to the greater mismanagement of GWB relative to GHWB. And health care hasn't been fully implemented to an extent that would shift its positives significantly--yet.
So Obama's problems are structural, not oratorical or tactical. But whining about communications strategies is candy for a pundit and consultant class who make their living off of crafting communications strategies. Especially when those folks forget exactly how "polarizing" Clinton seemed in 1996. Let's leave the nostalgia to the GOP. As much as I admire Bubba, I have no interest in Reaganizing him or his legacy.
T2 on September 04, 2012 12:49 PM:
I agree that for such a a gifted speaker, Obama and his team has communicated their successes poorly. But don't we have to assign an equal or better part of the blame to a Media obsessed with the "both sides" mentality. For every great think Obama has done, there has been story after story picking it apart and Sunday News shows full of GOPers telling us lies about it which go unchallenged. The poor public has to sort all this crap out and most of us/them just don't have the time to FactCheck every damn story out of Washington. That used to be the Media's job, then they'd simply tell us the truth and we'd read it.
brewmn on September 04, 2012 12:52 PM:
Just want to add my voice to those requesting the Rendell either get with the program or STFU.
Ed, one of the main reasons Obama gets less credit than he might is asshole Dems like yourself falling over themselves to criticize him in furtherance of their own Beltway media viability.
Diane Rodriguez on September 04, 2012 12:59 PM:
"So Obama's problems are structural, not oratorical or tactical. But whining about communications strategies is candy for a pundit and consultant class who make their living off of crafting communications strategies."
@RMcD Exactly! It's purely personal preference about which kind of charisma grabs you. Both Presidents had a tough landscape. Some of Clinton's was self inflicted. Obama faces a much tougher road thru no fault of his own.
T2 - agree Rendell and McCain could keep the whole neighborhood off their lawns.
bigtuna on September 04, 2012 1:08 PM:
Mostly insider ball tha most real people don't care about.
However, I do with the message was made more strongly.
Example. I for one am happy as duck in water that the murderous thug bin Laden was sent to Allah. And under whose watch was that? hmm...
Or that east african piracy is way down ? hmm....
etc
Jim, Foolish Literalist on September 04, 2012 1:12 PM:
Rendell writes. “Hardly any, because it was never explained to them.”
The hell it wasn't. Horses to water and all that. One of the reasons Obama has such a hard time selling his successes is because he's dealing with a mess that the President who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal and bragged that "the era of big government is over" helped create.
And fracking and extraction industry lobbyist Ed Rendell is bitter because he thought he was going to be in Hillary's cabinet-- he delivered quite a soliloquy on MSNBC about how "Secretary" is a higher title (that's the word he used) than "Governor".
Anonymous on September 04, 2012 1:35 PM:
It's like he just disappeared after the inauguration.
lol. Apparently you don't remember all the Serious Media™ prattling on about how over exposed Obama was in the months after the inauguration.
Obama did use the "bully pulpit", but the Serious Media™ decided that was so 2008. Instead, they decided to focus full coverage on Palin tweets and angry Tea baggers.
FlipYrWhig on September 04, 2012 1:38 PM:
Attributing Clinton's successes to "communication" or The Bully Pulpit is, shall we say, bullshit. What Clinton did was co-opt Republican-favored ideas, get Republicans to agree to enact them, and then run on how great they were. When Obama did similar things (IMHO to shore up support from the right-most side of the Democratic party, but I digress), the Republicans refused to play along, specifically in order to deny him the credit that Clinton got when he used the same maneuver. And, frankly, I don't remember people being so quick to credit Clinton, or being so able to enumerate his wondrous contributions to America, when Clinton was actually the president. Clinton reaped benefits from a bubble economy and an opposition that hadn't yet descended entirely into naked obstructionism. "Communication" is a fable obscuring very different political conditions that Obama can't recreate.
TCinLA on September 04, 2012 1:44 PM:
Clinton's big speech is tomorrow night, while General Electric TV, er, I mean NBC, is running a preseason football game (officiated by scabby morons). I guess General Electric has cast its vote, eh?
FlipYrWhig on September 04, 2012 1:45 PM:
In other words, people didn't like Clinton because they could recite his accomplishments point by point, they liked him because the economy was working better than it is now. All of the "communication" stuff is just pundits wanking about their soft-focus memories of Ronald Reagan. Has any other president in the era of big-time corporate media been successful at "communication"? I would say no. Their successes are all about projecting an image, not about giving voters tangible things to point to as What The President Did. And if the litmus test is What The President Did, well, Obama has a pretty strong list, and people do, in fact, point to it.
Mary Anne on September 04, 2012 1:48 PM:
Boatboy,
Michael Deaver was a master of getting Reagan in the headlines every day. All that mattered was a picture of him looking "presidential." Optics matter and can help; Obama needs to show us he is leading, to get himself out there and he can if only he would. He doesn't seem to know how to use his power to rally the country, or he doesn't care to. Republicans held only a minority in both the House and Senate and rode roughshod over the national debate. They know how to use their power, even when they didn't have it.
Instead of Clinton, think Roosevelt. The president's voice is heard when he speaks, if only he would.
Mary Anne
TCinLA on September 04, 2012 2:04 PM:
The Clinton folks are right. Obama shut down OFA as soon as he was inaugurated, just when he was going to need organized supporters out there, as the Republicans were organizing their "Tea Party" scam. He consistently failed to sell health care reform, allowing the other side to define it. Ditto for the stimulus, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and everything else. As someone who worked in professional politics, I started screaming about this the day they shut down OFA. Obama is consistently his own worst enemy because he doesn't fight.
Joe Friday on September 04, 2012 2:54 PM:
Tom,
"Clinton's 'mystical connection' with the public had a lot more to do with the tech-fueled economic boom than any speech he ever gave"
Your chronology is WAY off.
The first web browser (Mosaic) wasn't even invented until 1993, after Clinton was inaugurated, and wide-spread commercial dial-up didn't exist until 1995. Your so-called "tech-fueled economic boom" didn't occur until his second term was almost over, not to mention it was a TINY fraction of the overall econonomy. The national economy, as well as the stock markets took off years earlier.
""
I don't know in what country you were livin', but Clinton left office with the highest approval of any President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he had four terms.
Joe Friday on September 04, 2012 3:00 PM:
The forum ate part of my post?:
"Clinotn's beloved status is strictly after-the-fact."
I don't know in what country you were livin', but Clinton left office with the highest approval of any President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he had four terms.
bdop4 on September 04, 2012 3:07 PM:
My biggest problem with the stimulus was that the Obama administration treated tax cuts like a feature of the package and not a bug.
Tax cuts are extremely poor economic stimulus, but I remember Obama reps boasting about how the stimulus package included tax cuts.
You can agree to incorporate tax cuts as part of the negotiations, but you should always characterize them as a concession that lessens stimulative effectiveness.
robert Waldmann on September 04, 2012 3:16 PM:
Rendell = Ryan
As usual you are too kind to Clintonites. My problem wth Rendell's statement "“How many Americans know that more than 40 percent of the stimulus spending was for tax cuts?” Rendell writes. “Hardly any, because it was never explained to them.”" is that it is absolutely false. A lie. along the lines of claiming he ran an under 3 hour marathon.
In fact Americans were told again and again and again that 40% of the stimulus was for tax cuts. The claim that Obama didn't accurately claim, assert, report, and say that he and fellow Democrats had massively cut taxes is simply false. Rendell's claim is false and he must know that it is false. He lied and slandered Obama.
Look I know only TV matters and I personally am not willing to google all TV stations. But I did google Obama "tax cuts" at www.whitehouse.gov http://bit.ly/OVBQlX
and got approximately 34,400 hits.
Also, by the way, the Clinton's managed to use the bully pulpit to get support for health care reform from an overwhelming majority to a minority.
Your post demonstrates that Rendell is a liar who has nothing useful to contribute to any discussion. But even as a Conservative discussing Paul Ryan, you ignore the facts entirely when discussing his lies.
Robert Waldmann on September 04, 2012 3:37 PM:
I have calmed down a bit and will try to be more on topic. I claim that Clinton was no more successful in the bully pulpit than Obama. Yes he is very popular and had a very high job approval rating in his second term. But I think this is the result of getting good results and not of good salesmanship. The economy boomed. Clinton may have been responsible for the boom, but he wasn't responsible for people noticing it.
Consider taxes. Yes the Democrats cut the taxes for the vast majority of American families with the ARRA (and also other tax cuts later). Yes in one poll 8% recognise this fact and in another 12 % (or maybe 14 I don't remember). But this does not imply that Clinton could have sold the ARRA any better.
In 1993 the Democrats raised income taxes on 1 to 2% of families and cut taxes for many more by expanding the EITC*. Yet in a poll over 30% of respondents said that Clinton had raised their taxes.
The ability of Republicans to deceive was as amazing then as in 2009. The claim that Clinton could have convinced the public of the plain obvious truth is demonstrably false.
And the claim that Obama didn't try is so obviously false that, I repeat, it must be a lie.
(even if one counts the negative income tax part as welfare and that even for families who pay more in payroll taxes then they get in negative income taxes many income tax burdens were cut to zero (and beyond but even if that doesn't count still cut to zero))
baotboy_srq on September 04, 2012 4:02 PM:
@Mary Anne on September 04, 2012 1:48 PM
The press loved Reagan. Deaver was a genius at publicity, but he didn't have to deal with the modern journalistic obsession with "balance." All you need to do is Google "there you go again" and you'll see how they ate it up. It took Iran-Contra and the HIV crisis to tarnish the Teflon President, and those weren't soon enough or big enough to prevent him from winning a 2nd term or to prevent GHWB from succeeding him in 1988.
Deaver also worked in a pre-Newscorp world: the idea that journalism was a "lieberal" stronghold was fairly alien in those days. Fox News wasn't launched until 1996, so today's "fair and balanced" push had zero impact. The Cato Institute was still fairly young, and the Internet and the likes of Breitbart, Malkin et al were nowhere to be seen outside the rags of the wingnut fringe.
None of the impediments to a Democrat achieving enough exposure to the public to make use of the bully pulpit were either in place or in force when Reagan was President, and journalists were more interested in facts and less in the agenda of their managers/sponsors/board/etc.
I'll happily agree that BHO hasn't had the exposure that Reagan had, or that Clinton had after him, or that the result of modern. But the conditions have changed: if it doesn't fit with a network's meme, or compress into a tweet, most journalists today are too interested in avoiding charges of bias to report accurately on almost any subject (too much "Republicans Insist Sky Is Yellow; Democrats and Scientists Disagree" in the press). Blaming BHO for the Fox Effect doesn't help - in Rendell's case, mostly because he and his kind contributed to drowning out the message in heaps of manufactured dissent before wondering how "the message got lost."
Jay Carney and David Axelrod can maneuver all they want and shmooze with the networks to their hearts' content, but so long as the networks prefer to bring Repubs on to the talking heads shows they'll never be able to match their 20th century predecessors. And so long as folks like Rendell keep shutting the President and his subordinates out of the dialogue then they have no business complaining - or discussing others supposedly complaining - that BHO isn't getting the exposure necessary to sell his agenda.
Allen on WestCoast on September 04, 2012 4:04 PM:
I'm not a Clinton fan and I almost never comment on the blogs I read, but I totally agree with the complaints about Obama not using the bully pulpit. It appears to me that he and the entire Democratic party are loathe to stand up for Democratic Party values, or even to present their own vision for America. Four years ago Obama talked about taking advantage of teaching moments, and then when he got into the White House it's like he became totally afraid of doing that. And it seems like the entire Democratic party has had it's collective mouth zipped up. They're not behind Obama and they have no plan for messaging like the Repubs do (or did Obama ask them to not say anything and let Obama do all the talking?). Two things stand out to me as embodying Obama/the Dems' fear of standing up for anything: 1) the reaction to Pastor Terry Jones' burning of the Koran. Obama waited until nearly everyone on planet Earth criticized this before he got on the train and said something. I couldn't believe it. What an opportunity that was to reiterate how the essence of American democracy and freedom is freedom of freedom of belief, and that freedom cannot survive when people respond to different belief systems by trying to burn them. But Obama had to wait until it was safe. 2) Sometime back there Dems, maybe Obama, were saying that the people had to make Obama be stronger on whatever. Fair enough. So then the Occupy movement started, and Obama and nearly the entire Democratic party fled from them as if they were poison. Compare that with the Repubs reaction to the Tea Party movement - they got behind it, steered it to their own purposes and it became an advantage for them. The Occupy movement is the left's answer to the Tea Party, the values behind it offered Obama and the Democrats a golden opportunity to present big ideas about what America is supposed to be about. But Obama and the Dems chickened out. That says it all to me.
Tom Q on September 04, 2012 4:14 PM:
Robert Waldmann has already given most of my answer, but to directly answer Joe Friday:
In real time, Clinton was anything but popular during the first 2-3 years. The deficit reduction package got no GOP votes and was widely viewed as causing voter anger; Health care was a fiasco that went down to grisly defeat; the midterms (in not nearly as tough an economic climate as Obama faced in '10) were disastrous. Clinton's poll numbers in '95 were worse than Obama's ever got. But then the economy started growing, and never quit. Yes, Clinton left office with sensational approval figures...but he never showed in polling to be peronally beloved (he's the opposite of Obama, in that regard). Watch if the economy blooms in Barack's second term; he'll leave office with equally rosy numbers. Will this sudden mean Obama got hs communication mojo working?
None of this is said to disparage Clinton. I liked Bill Clinton, in real time. And, early on, I spent a whole lot of time arguing with people who kept telling me he was doing this wrong and that wrong, when it was plain that the main issue was the economy was still in HWBush hangover. Now alot of these same folks are pointing to Clinton as the exemplar to Obama's detriment, and I'm saying, I have a memory, I know you're rewriting history.
Democrats treat their presidents the way Phillies' fans treated Mike Schmidt: they bitched and moaned about him the whole time he was playing; then, about the time he checked out, they decreed him the best third baseman who ever lived, and were ready to flatten anyone who disagreed.
Geoff G on September 04, 2012 4:47 PM:
People fond memories of Clinton because he got reelected, left the country better in a better place than it was eight years before, and because the passage of time makes things look better. If he was so damn good in the bully pulpit, what did he do with it? Did he make it possible for gays to server openly in the military? No, but Obama did. Did he veto the Defense of Marriage Act? No, he signed it, but Obama's DOJ is not supporting the act in courts, claiming that it is unconstitutional. Did he pass healthcare reform? No, but Obama did, crappy communication skills and all. That seems like a better place to be in than "Man, if we have just passed healthcare reform, we'd be able to sell it like nachos at a ballgame."
I can sort of see being disappointed in Obama, if you are also disappointed with every Democratic president we've ever had. Yea, things suck, and no matter how long you live, they always will, no matter how good a communicator or fighter we put in the White House. But, if you try to argue that Clinton was somehow a better president than Obama, you're just privileging your current crappy feeling over very imperfect memories of a seemingly happier time. Back then, you were just as disappointed with Clinton as you are with Obama now, you've just forgotten.
Sam on September 04, 2012 4:59 PM:
like Brian explained I'm impressed that anybody able to get paid $7802 in a few weeks on the internet. have you seen this link (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/bjWzR
Joe Friday on September 04, 2012 6:09 PM:
Tom,
"In real time, Clinton was anything but popular during the first 2-3 years."
WHO claimed he was ?
YOU posted:
"Clinotn's beloved status is strictly after-the-fact"
I merely pointed out that you were WRONG, as he had the highest approval rating of any President since FDR, BEFORE he left office.
brewmn on September 05, 2012 12:12 AM:
"...I merely pointed out that you were WRONG, as he had the highest approval rating of any President since FDR, BEFORE he left office."
And yet, he failed to translate that approval into any historic legislation. But I guess to Ed Rendell, and Clinton's defenders on the internet, the reason for getting elected president is to make sure people like you when you leave.
Joe Friday on September 05, 2012 10:58 AM:
brewmn,
"And yet, he failed to translate that approval into any historic legislation."
* Enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for seriously ill family members, new born or adoptive children, or their own serious health problems without fear of losing their jobs. Nearly 91 million workers (71% of the labor force) are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act and millions of workers have benefited from FMLA since its enactment, which increased worker productivity.
* Enacted the largest investment in education in 30 years, and the largest investment in higher education since the G.I. Bill.
* Proposed and enacted the HOPE Scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits, which were claimed by an estimated 10 million American families struggling to pay for college. The Hope Scholarship helps make the first two years of college universally available by providing a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first two years of college. The Lifetime Learning tax credit provides a 20% tax credit on the first $5,000 of tuition and fees for students beyond the first two years of college, or taking classes part-time.
* Established the new Direct Student Loan program which bypasses federally guaranteed lenders to deliver loans to students more quickly, simply, and cheaply. Together, students and taxpayers saved $15 billion. The student loan default rate declined to 6.9% from 22.4%, the lowest rate ever.
* Revised the SBA to provide more than $77 billion in loans to small business, more than in the previous 25 years combined. Provided $17.5 billion in loans to 77,000 minority-owned businesses and $11.7 billion in loans to 79,000 women, more than the SBA provided in total during its previous 40 years.
* The SBA's Small Business Investment Company Program doubled venture capital investments. This program made 53% of all institutional venture capital deals in the United States, enabling 3,100 venture capital investments totaling $4.2 billion.
* Established the Technology Opportunity Program (TOP), which is a major piece of the Digital Divide initiative. TOP helps increase access to technology for small businesses by providing start-up money for innovative projects using advanced technology in the public and non-profit sectors.
* Enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which created a moratorium on Internet access taxes and taxes that discriminate against e-commerce
* Raised the Federal Minimum Wage twice, increasing wages for more than 10 million workers.
* Raised taxes on the top 1.2% of income earners and raised the Corporate Income Tax rate. Used the money to pay down Reagan/Poppy Bush federal deficits and debt, expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided tax relief to 15 million hard-pressed working families and lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty, and enacted a $500 per-child tax credit for 27 million families with 45 million children.
This resulted in:
* 23 million net new jobs created, the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more jobs than Reagan/Poppy Bush created during their three terms combined (the majority paying higher than the average wage). The economy added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record.
* The Unemployment Rate declining for seven years in a row, down to the lowest level in four decades, to 3.9%.
* The Poverty rate declining each and every year for eight years from 1993 through 2000.
* The largest drop in the Child Poverty rate in 30 years.
You want I should list more ?