Why President Obama doesn't need to be Bill Clinton

  • Article by: Norman J. Ornstein , Special to the Washington Post
  • Updated: September 14, 2012 - 6:44 PM

The stylistic differences between Obama and Clinton are stark. But the comparison ignores larger realities about both presidencies.

  • 29
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
roadtoruinSep. 14, 1211:26 AM

Why doesn't President Obama need to be Bill Clinton?.,. Because he is already Jimmy Carter, Mach II.

20
20
gadams500Sep. 14, 1212:45 PM

Woodward's book is a bunch of baloney. He is pimping it constantly on all the news shows and it is just the wild speculation of one old man well past his reporting prime. Obama should stop campaigning now and just let Romney and his republican handlers self implode as they do daily. It is pretty much like watching a train wreck. Interesting but painful to watch.

21
15
mongoose32Sep. 14, 12 1:05 PM

Say what you will about their political stylings. The fact is Clinton made progress. Obama has not.

16
17
roadtoruinSep. 14, 12 1:09 PM

Actually President Obama reminds me a lot of former MN Vikings head coach Denny Green, not because of the similarity of the color of their skin but rather the thinness of it. Denny Green loved to claim responsibility for the Viking’s success but rarely if ever would accept responsibility for the Viking’s failures. The same can be said about Barack Obama and his presidency

16
17
drichmnSep. 14, 12 1:09 PM

"The fact is Clinton made progress. Obama has not." ... only in conservative fantasy land.

15
13
freedubaySep. 14, 12 1:23 PM

Did this writer watch the DNC?

6
7
9moonsSep. 14, 12 1:24 PM

The "conservatives" in this country are so brainwashed by their bubble of right-wing media that they don't even know what reality or facts are anymore.

They just know what they hear on Fox or Hate Radio.

15
12
viktorvaughnSep. 14, 12 1:29 PM

Wow, credit needs to be given where it's due. Coming from a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, this was a very balanced and factually-based piece. I've never read anything from AEI that wasn't narrow-agenda-driven tripe.

9
3
omnipresentSep. 14, 12 1:30 PM

What an interesting read! I'd forgotten just how relentless and vicious the GOP had been towards Clinton - it all floods back now. I'm wondering how it is that one party goes off the deep end into sheer incivility and rabid strategies to take down any Dem president. It's beyond ideological differences or policy disagreements. Way beyond that. It's more like a feeding frenzy to attack non-stop and more often than not even by making up outright lies, then pursuing them. I'd forgotten how the GOP shut down the government then and just how obstructionistic they were. And that's before the Tea Party invasion!! It's all too clear by now that one party puts its quest for power way above the well-being of this country. It's disgraceful.

12
9
omnipresentSep. 14, 12 1:33 PM

"The fact is Clinton made progress. Obama has not."*******Did you not read this article?? Significant progress by the president was summarized and even then leaving out pages of other accomplishments. Not the least of which was saving the giant auto industry and averting a major depression! I swear that if Obama found the cure for cancer, the hate-filled right wing would dismiss or denigrate it. Pathetic.

15
8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT