American Experience Clinton Documentary

If you get a chance, be sure to watch the awesome job American Experience did with its documentary about Bill Clinton, simply titled "Clinton".

As someone that was 19-years old in 1992, Bill Clinton was the first person I ever voted for, and I even got to shake his hand during his re-election campaign in early 1996. The Clinton presidency was an important period in my life as it started while I was a college sophomore contemplating my future and ended while I was shopping for an engagement ring to give to the woman to whom I am married today. Watching all 3 hours and 35 minutes really brought back some great memories about my 20's and also how great the 1990's were compared to today.

Here is part 1 of 27. Please take the time to watch this documentary. You will be glad you did.

Watch Clinton on PBS. See more from American Experience.

CTJ: Advocates of Low Taxes Admit that Clinton Era Rate Hikes Did Not Hurt the Economy

Yeah, you know. The peace and prosperity scare of the 1990's?

How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama | The New Republic

Many people I know would agree with this but The New Republic does add some caveats to its assessment, including this very important point:

"THE MOST CRUCIAL difference between Clinton’s debt limit battle and the current crisis is that, in 1996, the Republicans were bluffing. No Republican seriously considered defaulting on the debt to be a viable option."

My how times have changed...

Credit where credit is due: Navy SEALs, then everyone else involved...

I recently commented on an online post:

"Can't give more or less credit to anyone other than the Navy SEALs that pulled this off. What this proves is the vibrancy of our democracy in spite of the polarization of the recent years. The reason this happened is because the Clinton people told the Bush people that bin Laden is known to use couriers, which the Bush people used to identify the couriers and their names, which the Obama people used to find out where the courier lived. Even in the stablest of democracies, it would be rare for leaders of opposing political parties sharing that kind of information."

to which a friend of mine wrote:

"excellent point. seriously, more people need to read what you wrote. been reading too much of Bush vs Obama BS regarding this Osama killing."

So here you go. :-)

President {insert name here} wants to destroy the Constitution!

Interesting op-ed by Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’S “Morning Joe” in Politico last Monday. This is remarkably, and sadly, a very accurate passage:

“For eight grim years, Democrats worked to delegitimize Bush. Opinion leaders on the left relentlessly bashed the 43rd president on national TV and online, accusing him of being a fascist and war criminal who worked in tandem with Vice President Dick Cheney to destroy the Constitution.

Eight years before Bush entered the White House, Republicans (like myself) glared at Bill Clinton as he was being sworn in as president, immediately declaring him unfit for office. Soon after he was sworn in, extremists began claiming that the 42nd president was a Marxist and fascist who sought to destroy the Constitution.

The ugliness that followed set a dangerous precedent that fed into the shrillness of the Bush era. And as the Age of Bush mercifully came to a close, a cacophony of enraged right-wing voices welcomed Obama to the White House by accusing him of being a Marxist, a fascist, a Nazi and a racist who hated America and was — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — trying to destroy the Constitution.”

The Truth About Support for Healthcare Reform

Thank you Joel Benenson for writing in today's Washington Post what I've been thinking for months: why do so many polls show Americans are against health care reform when they strongly support individual provisions that are in the bill? I personally think this is due to the poor job of communication done by the White House and the Democrats in Congress and an excellent job of demonization by House and Senate Republicans. The first time I really heard a clear explanation from the White House of the immediate benefits of health reform was probably in last week's Weekly Presidential Address.

Reading Benenson's piece shows that the opponents of reform are only interested in preventing the President and Democratic Party from achieving a victory. Many have said that the current legislation being discussed and debated is actually more conservative than some of the Republican alternatives proposed to the Clinton health care plan of 1993. The fact of the matter is those that vote against health care reform will have to explain to voters this November why they:

1. Voted against banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those who are sick. (a.k.a. Denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions.)
2. Voted against the tax credits for small businesses offering coverage. (a.k.a. The Insurance Exchanges.)
3. Voted against helping seniors on Medicare pay less for prescription drugs. (a.k.a. The Medicare "Doughnut Hole".)

If reform gets signed into law, it will be interesting to watch opponents explain why it was necessary to vote against the entire bill knowing that these three major issues would be left unchanged if reform had not passed.

Parker: The GOP's suicide pact

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker writes about the GOP's so-called "purity test". This is significant because it's usually when party members start calling out their own kind that progress eventually happens. Such was the case of the Democratic Party, which led to the creation of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980's, whose most prominent members at the time were Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Tennessee Senator Al Gore (and we know they weren't in those two jobs for long after the creation of the DLC.)

I don't often support most Republican positions but that doesn't mean I never would and never will. Remember, this is the party that started as a movement for the abolition of slavery. In any democracy, there need to be many political parties and in our democracy specifically, there need to be two vibrant ones.

Conservatives of today have forgotten, much like the liberals of the 1970's did, that the purpose of a political party is to get its members elected however possible. If you cast a wide net, you may catch some fish that stink but if you like fish, they'll all be delicious when you put them in the pot together and cook them.