Re: They always have a scapegoat. was: Ride of...
You asked a question why Hillary does not deserve the nomination. I gave you answers. And whether you accept my answer or not, the simple fact is that a majority of the Democrats (not to mention the American people as a whole) agree with my assessment. Hillary has been losing superdelegates from her camp. Has Obama has ANY defectors at all?
It is clear that you are letting your political opinions impact what facts you accept, and which ones you conveniently forget. The fact is, the economy was already in trouble in 2000 before Bush won over Gore. And there have been plenty of analytic studies that explained "the Clinton expansion" and why it ended when it did. The reality is that had little, if anything, to do with Clinton and his policies. The key was the exorbitant spending that businesses committed to "fixing the Y2K problem." Did you ever put 2 and 2 together and realize that employment for programmers (a large part of employment in the tech sector) began to contract at the same time that the economy went downhill? If you did, you would realize the correlation. The reason the economy lost steam right AFTER the Y2K non-event was because the perceived "need to spend oodles of money" on programmers was now over. The layoffs ensued in VERY short order. And this only added to the "dot com bust" which was already in full force.
So again, the reality is that Clinton handed Bush an economy that was already in down cycle. There are no facts that you could possibly use to refute this. And then, to make matters worse, Bush was then handed the tragedy of 9/11 to deal with. With all the gloom and doomers taking that opportunity to predict that 9/11 would be the death nail to our economy (those idiots will use whatever event they can to try and justify their gloom and doom), most people were betting against the US economy. But guess what? It EXPANDED... and by quite a bit!!! If you want more "inconvenient facts" that refute your conclusion, please take a look at the 3 major stock indices historical performance from 2002 through 2007. You will notice nothing but "economic expansion". And it all happened under Bush. If you are one of those people who actually believe a single person (the President) has that much influence over the economy, this data would have to say you are wrong and that Bush did good things for the economy. Myself, I know that a President is not the sole factor, nor even the primary factor that makes an economy "good" or "bad".
If I wanted to use the politics of division (which you seem to subscribe to) as a means to further prove you wrong, I would simply ask you the following question:
When did the Democrats take control over Congress and relative to that time, when did the economy begin to get into trouble?
The facts that would answer this question could be interpreted to "prove" that the economy was doing fine (looking only at the numbers) right up until the time the DEMS took control over Congress (and let us not forget it is the Congress that passes spending budgets...the Pres just approves or disproves them). So a politically-motivated person could easily make the case that "it was the DEMS taking over Congress that lead to our current economic problems." How would you go about defending or refuting that??? Hmmmmm?
Hillary will not win because the American people want "change" (a relative term). Not only are they sick of Bush, but they are equally sick of Clinton (again, speaking for the majority). It seems abundantly clear that the American people do NOT want "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...."
But you believe whatever you want. I am not here to change your mind. But I did answer your question.
RMT
