I did read it. I see that they produced a chart topping several columns with the data they wanted to highlight, and threw away a mention of the President who shall not be named in Paragraph 49 or something of the text.Well, yeah, it was the data they wanted to highlight. The point of the editorial was to argue that strong economic growth differentiates a successful presidency from an unsuccessful presidency. To back up that argument it presented the data from two "successful" presidencies, that of Clinton and Reagan. The Bush administration was, to them, a failure.True, as you say, to understand what they were you doing did require that one actually read the article rather than just look at the pictures. Doubtless, the Huffington audience would do better with a Youtube video.But if you know anything at all about the WSJ op/ed page and possess even the slightest appreciation of irony, you'd realize that the significant feature of the piece is that they put Clinton right next to Reagan as an example of success.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat