I do not support Carville and am glad that he lost in those various countries, still the degree of American power and influence in the world tends to be overstated, often grossly so.  If America were wiped off the face of the earth, another power would take it's place.  Further, the problems of Latin America, the Middle East, etc., would still exist, as they have been existing, long before America showed up on the scene.

Some comments: 

Reagan:  If Reagan were really good at fighting unemployment and inflation the first would be at 4% and the second at 2%.  That is what they were in previous times.

Clinton:  Economic prosperity?  Sure if you count a whole mess of low-wage, part-time, temporary jobs.  And with his neoliberal policies Clinton helped pave the for our present debacle. 

Well actually FDR did not always support Democrats.  In Wisconsin for instance he tended to support the more radical Progressives.  Interestingly enough, the Democratic Party still wound being vastly expanded during his presidency, becoming the majority party-a position which came to an end under Bill Clinton.

Sorry but polls don't mean that much.  This is impressionistic, but from memories of the time, Bill Clinton was'nt that popular.  His approval ratings were more a negative reflection of the Republican Congress' unpopularity than anything else.  And do such ratings mean that the mass of the population liked such administration actions as the 2000 China Treaty?  One thinks not.

Just that Schumer is not as great a Senator as this writer and others seem to think that he is.

Isn't Schumer a little too close to the financial industry?

One is all for jobs, but let's try to do it democratically.  Let's have more mass participation.  If businesses are set up, let them be run by their employees, and let their workers unionize.  Let us patronize all businesses, not just a privileged few.  And, let the American people collectively be the nation's biggest shareholder by setting up a new Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a la FDR. 

Good!  Now hopefully Feingold will stop parroting Republican nemes like how good he is at balancing the budget and cutting government waste, and start acting more like a Democrat.  

Good analysis.  To elaborate, it should be recalled that in 1994 liberals did far better in surviving the debacle of that year than moderates and centrists did.

I apologize for the assumption, it is just that many socially liberal, economically conservative, upper-middle class yuppie snobs think that way.

Sorry but this still looks like a statement from someone who has a good-paying job already.  I have never said that jobs are the only value, simply that it should not be ignored.

What about good-paying jobs?  If coal goes, they may have to resort to gambling casinos.  Is that so much better?

If coal is to be eliminated, there had better be a substitute.

Sorry but this is deeply unfair to the American people as a whole.  Americans do not buy into the Republican mantra of small government, they just do not have a choice.  It is the lackluster quality of the alternatives that has led America to it's impasse.

No, we need more spending, on a World War II level, to get us out of this "great Recession!"  FDR-acting upon the poor advice of his Secretary Of The Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.-did this, and as a result the U.S.A. did not completely get out of the Great Depression until World War II and all it's spending.

Also, if you want to balance the budget, raise taxes drastically and cut defense spending dramatically.  Wipe out Ronnie Reagan and his fiscal and defense policies.  Any "deficit reduction" plan that does not do these things-and no, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan does'nt cut it, it was the whole extension of the cold war into the 80's and the repudiation of detente that was/is the culprit, we should restore defense spending and taxes to pre 1980 levels-should not be taken seriously.

Some fine points...

It is questionable to say that Clinton's 1993 budget was progressive.  If it was, the top rate would have been what it was before Reagan-70%-rather than just 39.5%.  Clinton did more to confirm Reagan than to repeal him.

On Afghanistan, would Hillary Clinton-whom some people here supported in 2008 instead of Obama-as President have done anything better, or different?  It is something to ponder.