[My2Cents]

Challenging Bush on terror is like going after Clinton on the economy

I disagree with the analogy. I think it's easy to take Clinton on regarding the economy. Increasingly, people are seeing that the so-called "Clinton Prosperity" was really a continuation of the "Reagan Prosperity," that after a small dip economic expansion began under Bush-41, that the economy really took off after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, and that much of the "prosperity" in the Clinton years was based on inflated earnings reports of publicly-traded companies.

But the Dems' suicidal tendencies on Iraq are only the revelation of their true natures, caused by political desparation that nothing they try has any traction.

[bagman]

I think that you're missing the point. The perception in the electorate is that the booming economy of the Nineties was due to Clinton. It is immaterial whether this perception is justified. Clinton is widely considered to be due credit for those "good times."

For my part, I always thought that the booming 90s were due to productivity increases arising from the integration of personal computers to the workplace. I also note that the Leading Economic Indicators started declining in January, 2000, just when '43 was inagurated. Oops! That's right - Clinton would still be president for another year. Perhaps that economy wasn't so good.

Again, our ramblings regarding the true state of the economy are not important. Morris is arguing perception, not reality.

[Kenton]

But the Dems' suicidal tendencies on Iraq are only the revelation of their true natures, caused by political desparation that nothing they try has any traction.

I'm hoping for a Gore/Sharpton Democratic Ticket in 2004.

After which, the Democrats will have to reinvent themselves again.

[IncPen]

Challenging Bush on terror is like going after Clinton on the economy

It's pretty clear now that the "Clinton Economy" was smoke and mirrors. And "the surplus" never existed, except in Clinton's misbegotten dreams...