Reply #2: Different people, different times [View All]

[Mz Pip]

Clinton was president during a time where innovation and initiative were at their peak. Clinton, unlike his successor, gave it value. The economy did well because innovation was supported. Then along comes Bush who seemed more than happy to discard the idea of progress for wars and reactionary politics.

Maybe Clinton wasn't the most progressive of presidents and he certainly did some things I did not agree with but compared to some who came before him and the one who came after him he was a pretty good president.

Different times now. 2 wars, an economy in shambles, 8 years of Neanderthal policies to undue. It won't happen overnight. It's going to take years to turn this all around.

I don't want to go so far as to compare some Democrats with the Republicans who think Reagan was some kind of god. Different times. Different people. We do not live in a static environment and cannot recreate the past. I don't fault Obama for trying to take what worked from the Clinton administration and try to use it to fix today's ills. This is unchartered territory and using people who participated in what worked before isn't necessarily a bad idea - as long as you are willing to let it all go if it doesn't work.

I have my doubts about Summers and Geithner. But I am not an expert on these matters and can only hope that they have some desire to undo the mistakes of the past, even if they were part of the problem. I can't imagine that they do not want to be successful.

Lots of rambling thoughts here. I liked Clinton. I like Obama. Different people for different times. The one concern I have in all of this is that people have projected too much onto Obama - like he was going to come in as some kind of miracle worker. It doesn't work like that. Instant gratification isn't in the political vocabulary.