Obama vs. Clinton (no, not that one)

January 21, 2008

Obviously, we’ve never seen a political dynamic in this country in which a president’s spouse also ran for the White House. On a related note, we’ve also haven’t seen a former president take an active and assertive role in his party’s nominating process, directly attacking one of his party’s leading candidates during the primaries.

It’s led to a very awkward political environment in Democratic circles.

There was some talk among the chattering class last year about whether Bill Clinton would be a hindrance for Hillary Clinton. I always found the speculation rather silly — BC left office as the most popular president in decades; his stature has only grown since; and he commands widespread admiration in Democratic circles. If anything, HRC was the immediate frontrunner precisely because of goodwill towards her husband.

But I have to admit, I’ve been surprised, not only by the former president’s unusually aggressive posture towards Barack Obama over the last month or so, but by the party’s discomfort with Bill Clinton’s conduct. Michael Tomasky noted the other day:

I don’t know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich. The Clinton campaign may conclude that, numerically and on balance, Bill helped. But, trust me, to the thousands of committed progressives who supported him when he really needed it, who went to the mat for him at his moment of (largely self-inflicted) crisis but who now happen to be supporting someone other than his wife, he’s done himself a tremendous amount of damage.

Tomasky’s hardly the only one. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter reported that “prominent Democrats,” including Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, believe Bill Clinton’s conduct has been “inappropriate,” and have “told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking” Obama.

Over the weekend, Josh Marshall, an admitted fan of the former president, described his own discomfort in “seeing the man who is in many respects still the de facto leader of the Democratic party, certainly its elder statesman, inject himself as an attack dog into a intra-party contest. I think it’s damaging to him and more importantly I think it’s damaging to his party.”

Given all of this, Obama now apparently feels comfortable enough to start pushing back — gingerly — against the former president.

In a “Good Morning America” interview recorded yesterday and aired this morning, Obama described his willingness to “confront” Bill Clinton, which he said is necessary given the circumstances.

For those of you who can’t watch videos online, the clip shows Obama saying, “You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it’s about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate.”

Like the rest of the race, it’ll be interesting to see where this goes. There’s simply no way the Clinton campaign will scale back the former president’s campaign efforts, and it’s also unlikely the former president will hold back in his criticisms of his wife’s principal Democratic rival. Obama’s campaign, meanwhile, is in the untenable position of effectively running against two political powerhouses — Bill and Hillary Clinton — at the same time, even though only one is actually a candidate.

Will BC be able to dial it down a notch? Will Obama help or hurt himself if he forcefully challenges the former president? Will Dems be turned off by the Clinton campaign’s good-cop/bad-cop routine? Will HRC benefit or suffer from the two-against-one dynamic?

Stay tuned.

So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton’s are being too mean to him?

Pass the smelling salts!

Someone needs to inform the Obama’s that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.

All of the candidates have spouses who are strongly advocating for their respective spouses. Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.

Further, whatever the media thinks about Bill Clinton is irrelevant. Ultimately, it’s for the voters to decide.

And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem support the conclusion that Bill Clinton knows what he’s doing.

  • Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

    If Bill were not vociferous in support of Hillary, the party line would be that even her spouse doesn’t support her. No-win situation.

    Michelle Obama is pretty oiutspoken, why not Bill also?

  • “So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton’s are being too mean to him?”

    while i didn’t see the video, so i did not see the whole interview, based on the quote above, i hardly thought obama was whining. he was saying he was going to challenge clinton’s erroneous statements.

  • I think all these criticisms are overblown. I think all these people should remember all the tactics the Republicans have been using and remember that this is the game we are playing, and remind themselves of what the stakes are.

    I think those who are espousing the criticism should take a look at Hillary’s poll and primary contest results, and realize that Bill isn’t wither hurting her, or– also judgin from poll results– irreparably damaging Obama.

    The complainers are injecting themselves needlessly into the affairs of grown-up, more capable, more intelligent people.

  • Sorry for typos:

    I think those who are espousing the criticism should take a look at Hillary’s poll and primary contest results, and realize that Bill isn’t either hurting her, or– also judging from poll results– irreparably damaging Obama.

  • Except the comments won’t erroneous. They were opinions based on undisputed facts. Obama did change his statements and votes on the war. Obama spins the facts differently to explain what some see as his inconsisentcy.
    Some people believe him, some don’t. But just because you do that doesn’t make others opinions less valid. And Bill Clinton is allowed to freely speak his opinion just like any other American.
    If Kerry Can speak for Obama – why is it unfair for Clinton to speak for Hillary.

    And until Obama condemns the clear racism of the “Hillary disrespects our community ads”, I think he is being hypocritical in charging anyone in being unfair.
    It does sound like whining.

  • Bill Clinton said casino caucus locations would have a situation in which a vote there would be worth “five times” a vote in other locations.

    That’s a pretty specific number. Please provide a citation, Mr. President. Because, I was once a fan of you but have lately been seeing what others say about you is true… you don’t speak the truth, you are a consumed polititian looking out for yourself, and you believe in Karl Rove style politics of slime.

  • Michelle Obama is pretty oiutspoken, why not Bill also?
    Maybe we should have televised Spouses debates;>

  • Bill’s bare knuckle campaigning hurts his wife’s campaign because they are, in fact, a package deal. Buy one Hillary, get an experience and generally intelligent former president for free. It’s generally understood that Bill will be providing seasoned advice free of charge to Hillary, which would be an asset in issues such as foreign policy and the economy.

    But now Bill is coming off as much less than reasonable and maybe the advice he’d provide wouldn’t be so sage after all. Bill should shouldn’t lower himself to the status of campaign pit bull and should instead have the discretion to rise above it.

  • I think Hillary went a little negative because her campaign people looked at the situation and considered what works and couldn’t, in good conscience, not tell her to go negative, and I think any of us who are smart would have done the same in their position.

    I think all the complainers are over-reacting because they either have been conditioned by the media to over-react to Hillary, or because of some other reason that’s irrelevant to who’s the best candidate.

    I think if Obama is the eventual nominee, he’s also going to find occasion to use the same “negative” tactics he criticizes nowadays.

  • I didn’t see the “whining,” either. Horselover Fat, your “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t” statement could apply just as much to Obama as to Bill Clinton. If Obama tries to go up against the Clinton machine, he’s a whiner/sore loser/wimp. If he stays silent, he’s the second coming of John Kerry during Swiftboat August. I get the feeling that those who have made up their minds to oppose Obama will fling negativity in his direction no matter what he does. While I am not a Hillary supporter, I don’t go out on the blogs and start spewing Hillary-hatred. One of these two candidates is going to be our nominee; stop inventing and perpetuating memes that ultimately provide ammunition for the Republicans!

  • Are we really sure this isn’t Bill Clinton Part III?

    If y’all want that, so be it, but it would be nice to hear a little truth in advertising.
    Does Bill care a little too much for it to be only about supporting his wife?

    Does he smell a “do-over” in the air?

  • Truthsquad:

    The only people spinning anything are the Clintons. GMA demonstrated that fact quite well, when they juxtaposed the clip of Obama talking about the Republican being the party of ideas and Bill Clintons, as you say, opinion of what he said. It was glaringly obvious that Clinton was in fact distorting his statements not justified and certainly not reasonable under the circumstances. Where I’m from, that’s called lying.

    Put it more plainly, the only individuals with an interest in distorting Obama’s position are the Clintons and their supporters. And everything they say about Obama should be viewed with that in mind.

  • Are we really sure this isn’t Bill Clinton Part III?

    I think that is somewhat sexist to assume that the wife is just the stalking horse for the husband – it diminishes her own capabilities, ideas and intellect.

    Assuming, however, that what you meant was whether Bill is looking for a third term, that may overstate the case but I do think Bill probably assumes that a successful HRC Presidency would help ensure, and tidy-up, his own legacy.

    I think this is a tricky situation; Bill is a powerful enough orator that he has to be careful how he uses that skill. While any good husband wants to support and defend his wife, at some level it hurts HRC if it appears she cannot fight her own battles (which I believe she can, if Bill wouldn’t rush in so quickly). And it does diminish his legacy, although this was always going to be a problem with him being an “ex President” for such a long, long period of time (and indeed, in another damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t moment, plenty of people slammed on him when he was the non-partisan statesman working with GHW Bush because it helped cleanse the Bush brand).

  • While I’ve been a bit uncomfortable listening to Bill Clinton attack Obama in what seems to me to be an inappropropriately disrespectful way (when Obama is so classy and level-headed), it occurs to me that perhaps the whole point of this tactic is to show the likely Democractic voters that there will be a reliable and unreleating attack dog on the ass of whichever candidate the Republicans choose to carry their mantle.

    In the recent past, the Republicans have had little evidence of political scruples and many of the people around me fault Kerry for not taking an immediate and more public stance on the attacks on him for the 2004 election; perhaps this is the Clinton campaign’s way of letting us know, by exhibiting a certain aggression, that they won’t tolerate that crap when it’s thrown their way. I wish they had a more appropriate target than Barack Obabma, though, because his whole raison d’etre seems to me to be elevating the level of discussion and getting out of the mud slinging business. They’re sort of making his point for him.

    Or, maybe Bill’s just a loose cannon who’s gone off-script and is being an asshat.

  • Like Winnie the Pooh said: Oh bother!! I admit Bill is getting a bit hot, but if you read Krugman and think about how Obama bashed Bill in the Reno Gazette interview, there you got it. Why is Obama saying that Bill had no ideas ok? This is politics and Obama has to grow up and stop running everytime he hears something he does not like. This is not a coronation. I want to see Obama give the detailed interview that Hillary did about the economy today. Face it this is a time we need a technocrat. If you want to be inspired get some poetry or go read the Secret, the other thing Oprah was selling this year, or was it last year.

  • The reason I hoped HRC would not run, or would fall behind early, is both she and Bill constantly and needlessly create self-centered drama. Sure the media and Rs make a big deal out of it and sometimes create it, but the Clinton’s give them a lot to work with. How two people with such obvious smarts and talents could be so clueless is stunning. But the bottom line is that after all these years, it’s tiring. It was tiring before Bill left office. Enough.

  • One of Hillary’s claims is that she is better qualified to be president because she has 35 years of experience. However, after winning the New Hampshire primary she says “I have found my voice.” It took her 35 years to find her “voice?”

    Too bad that the voice she found belongs to Bill Clinton.

  • Publicus

    It is amazing then that John Edwards saw the same thing as Bill Clinton when he heard those statements about Reagan and the Republican ideas. So did alot of others who aren’t connected with the Clinton Campaign- like me

    I agree that how one views statements depends on one’s perspective- but the problem is that Obama’ supporters appear to equate their perspective with the truth .
    And if you don’t think that there has been denigration of Hillary by Obama supporters than I think you haven’t been reading these boards or others very closely. I also note you totally ignored my comment about the Hillary Disrespects Latino ads. Which in my opinion is worse than any of the comments being ascribed to Bill.
    As Obama himself stated- “no one’s hands are clean.”

    All sides (including Edwards) have made statements that others disagree with – but what bothers some people is the “holier than thou” mantle that the Obama campaign tries to wear- or at least the ones his supportes adopt.

    What you are not realizing is that it does not win you support. It only stops the conversation. There is a reason that a lot of Edwards support is going over to the Clinton.

  • Crickey.
    About time Barack.

    Bill Clinton is a bald face liar.
    We all know it.
    It is as real as sunlight.

    Obama needs to remind the country about it every chance Bill affords:
    He can’t be trusted.
    He is a liar.
    Repeat after me….

    In fact I’d go farther:

    He needs to remind the country that the Clinton’s come as a package.
    That Big Dog is called “Dog” for a good reason:

    Bill didn’t even have the decency to get his blow-job in a motel.
    Nope. He used the People’s House for the chore. Sick bastard.
    And you say he used his power to sexual abuse a young girl?
    The guy is a serial sexual offender.
    Holy Crap! And you want to give this perp the keys again?
    Otay. Sounds like a winner to me…

    Interesting side fact:

    The fact that some Dems still celebrate Bill really speaks tons about how zealotry clouds the thinking of party apparatchiks. Bill beat the Republicans twice. Ergo we should honor him no matter his sexual-moral sins. Just win baby. So never mind the terpitude. But somehow, even the fact that Bill and Hill show lost Congress for the Dems for the first time in 40 years just doesn’t seem to permeate into their party-skulls. Just win baby? Ding dong! Why did the country go about-face in 1994?

    You think it might have something to do with the Clintons?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

    Conclusion:

    The problem with belonging to a party is that it clouds your morality judgement and critical thinking skills. Parties are very much like religions. Most people are born into a party just as they are born into a religion. Most people die wearing the same party hats and religious garb they inherited at birth. If you at all believe in free-thinking: That simply can’t be right.

    Moral of the story:

    Party apparatchiks are dangerous creatures!
    They gladly twist reality and morality to suit…

  • Watch this video from Obama’s sermon Sunday in which he said unnamed opponents viewed MLK’s dream as “wishful thinking.” In this video, Barack joyfully sings every verse of “We Shall Overcome,” but when the pastor announces the next verse, Obama quickly lowers his head and refuses to sing a single word of the verse!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8x-1v1MIbs

  • ***”…directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate.”***

    I wonder….

    Have any of the Clintonites thought about this? Have they contemplated that this is the exact same thing that can be said about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, every one of the GOP candidates, and Fox News? All we need now is a political cartoon of some poor schmoe standing outside a horse stall, carrying a great big shovel and wearing scuba gear—with a caption that reads, “Day-um—the Clinton’s getting really deep in there!”

    The saddest part of it all is that the people who cried about the need to take the high road against the dirty tricks of the GOP are the same ones who blatantly defend Billy-J’s actions. It sends a really powerful message when someone could say back in the summer that “we need to take the high road” against the true enemies of Democracy, and they now make excuses for justifying “Big Dog’s Obama Slamma Show.”

    With a message like that from the trenches, it’s no wonder we’ve got a bunch of spineless ninnyhammers in Congress….

  • I still don’t get the ranting and raving. You guys are hysterical about Bill, you need to get it checked. Its about Hillary. Get over it.

  • It’s too late to answer “Anne” on yesterday’s thread, but I’d bet she is one of those “Edwards supporters” who are really Hillbots by her passionate support of everything the Clintons do and attacks on everything about Obama. I just wanted to tell “Anne” that although I said my husband and I will not vote for a ticket with Clinton’s name on it, and that includes the vice presidential slot, it does not mean we will vote Republican. It means we will not vote for a ticket with the name Clinton on it, period. There will be other options. But if a Republican gets in, it is not the fault of independents whom you Democrats should be trying to get on your side but the fault of the Democrats who are letting the Clintons steal the primary.

  • Bill and Hill seem to have the Rovian slime and smear tactics down pat… All that is missing is the smirk…

    Speaking of some “good ideas” from the grand Clinton Administrations in the 1990s, remember their convoluted 4,000+ page health care “reform” package to make health care slightly less corporate? Maybe they really didn’t want to do anything at all.. They certainly were too gutless to advocate a single-payer non-for-profit universal health insurance plan, which is the formula successfully used in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and most of Europe… The Clintons helped bring us NAFTA and WTO, which helped speed up the outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. The Clinton-pushed Telecommunication deregulation act helped concentrate the corporate media and made it more right-wing. Heck of a job, Bill… Now they are offering America two corporate royalists for the price of one…

  • So this is what you and many others are saying: You are not a Democrat, You are not committed to a political party, but yet you want to influence my party’s decision, and if we do not capitulate, immediately, you will give the General Election to the other party, maybe. And we are not to blame you. Yes, I do not blame petulant people who do not understand party politics. That attitude brought us the Reagan Democrat who morphed into the “independent”. Tell me independent of what? Is there an independent possibility in America?

  • Sure Bill Clinton is popular. We also know he is a liar. He really did have sex with that woman. If Clinton is going to wage attacks based upon lying about what Obama has said and distorting his record, Obama should respond.

    In attacking Clinton in this manner he is offering those who thought things were better under Clinton a real choice. Obama offers the better economic conditions without having to put up with the Clinton slime.

  • Stellaa writes to those of us disgusted with the behavior of the Clinton campaign, “You guys are hysterical about Bill, you need to get it checked…Get over it.”

    And specifically to an independent, she writes, “You are not committed to a political party, but yet you want to influence my party’s decision…I do not blame petulant people…”

    Stellaa appears to believe that Democrats can win elections without the help and support of independents who, according to Stella, should not participate in the primary process.

    Some of us want to expand the progressive base. Stellaa seeks to shrink it.

  • Stellaa said:
    Sorry, but morality is not in our genitals or the Presidents genitals.

    Right. It is in our principles.
    Got any?

    But thanks for proving my point that party apparatchiks will blithely dismiss basic morality to serve a “higher” purpose.

    Well-played.

  • Right on! Go get ’em Barack! You’ll be unstoppable in the general election having beaten the Clintons.

    And should Billary win the nomination, they can forget about ever receiving this liberal Democrat’s vote. I began the primary process about 50-50 for Obama/Clinton, but the Clintons’ behavior has really soured me on the prospect of their nomination. They don’t get to waltz to their nomination, so they slime a good man and fellow progressive? Sorry. I don’t play that way.

    It’s really depressing to be at this point, but here we are. Thanks a lot for destroying the Democratic Party, Billary!

  • ***Get over it.***

    Nope—ain’t gonna happen, Stella. If Billy-J wants to get up on that stage and give wifey-poo a ride on his coat-tails, then you’d damned well better believe that this issue IS about Billy-J. The crap being discussed isn’t coming from her mouth, and it isn’t her voice, and it isn’t her image—it’s Billy-J, 100%. And another thing—don’t quit your day job. You’re pathetically poor when it comes to playing the “shiny-thing shell game” gambit.

    And another thing—where do you come up with the idea that in order to be a Democrat, you have to be a Clinton Democrat? Isn’t that pretty much what you’re trying to peddle? That anyone who isn’t a Clinton Democrat is the enemy? Now you want to start slamming independents as well, because they “won’t see things your way?” Good luck with that one….

  • This is where it’s confusing. How can people truly claim they are progressive when the “alleged progressive”, Obama is more right to Hillary (yes..yes..Iraq) look at his health care, his vote for the Energy Bill, his lag on getting out an economic program.

    So, is he expanding the Progressive base or pandering to the middle ? When you pander you have to deliver. You have to do what they want. Look at the Evangelicas, the Rovian coalition for did not work, they, the Republicans have no base.

    What you guys are saying, forget the Democratic party and create a Rovian alliance to win at any cost. Well, to what end? They are either with us or against us..(smile). I believe in party politics. Choosing a candidate that represents the Party, not the perceived electorate. This is called leadership.

  • “wifey poo” and ” billary” you are speaking about a 60 year old woman who is a US Senator. She is not wifey poo or Bilary. Listen to her interview in the NY Times about the economy, I challenge Obama to be as articulate and knowledgeable.

    Yes, I am a party person. You gotta choose a side. There is no independent politics in America. If you don’t like the party change get. Go and do the work that it takes.

  • “naschkatze” said:

    It’s too late to answer “Anne” on yesterday’s thread, but I’d bet she is one of those “Edwards supporters” who are really Hillbots by her passionate support of everything the Clintons do and attacks on everything about Obama. I just wanted to tell “Anne” that although I said my husband and I will not vote for a ticket with Clinton’s name on it, and that includes the vice presidential slot, it does not mean we will vote Republican. It means we will not vote for a ticket with the name Clinton on it, period. There will be other options. But if a Republican gets in, it is not the fault of independents whom you Democrats should be trying to get on your side but the fault of the Democrats who are letting the Clintons steal the primary.

    Wow – please don’t put too much down on that bet.

    First, I am not now, nor have I ever been a “Hillbot;” I am not anyone’s “bot,” thank you, I am a thinking, reasoning human being whose support of Edwards has – amazingly – not rendered me blind, deaf and dumb, which is more than I can say for many – not all, but many – of the Obama supporters I have encountered. That you feel it necessary to attach a label to me says more about you than it does about me. If I thought Hillary was the best person to be president, I would not have to disguise that support behind an Edwards bumper sticker and financial comtributions to his campaign. For strategies that make no sense, see Giuliani- Florida.

    Second, you and your husband are free to stamp your feet and pout if you don’t get your way – it’s your vote, and you can use it or not.

    Third, if a Republican gets in, it will be because he got more votes. I find it interesting that you are already prepared to blame others for what happens in November, but we already know it will not be your fault. Good to know.

    Fourth, you seem to think that debate and discussion means that you have to stake out a position and never consider other opinions and other views, that admitting “your” candidate may have the same feet of clay that all the others do is heresy. Meanwhile, your own freakin’ candidate is not honestly representing his own history and his own positions – and if you watch really carefully, you will see all of them moving this way and that as they settle on where it is they really stand.

    Hillary, all by herself, has enough baggage that I would prefer not to have to see her name on the ticket. I have been upset and distressed by many of her positions and votes relating to the war and presidential power, but the truth is – the truth – that Clinton and Obama have nearly identical voting records on these issues, and the only thing that sets Obama apart from Clinton is one speech he gave in 2002. That’s not enough, in “my” book, for him to claim and own the moral high ground.

    She’s up to her eyeballs in special interest money, has some cozy realtionships with corporate America – and so does Obama. It’s one of the reasons I like Edwards, because I think he stands a better chance of making the case on issues that matter to me because he owes them nothing.

    I am constantly amazed at how thin-skinned the Obama supporters are, how indignant they get when challenged – you are gonna lose your mind if Obama is the nominee, because the challenges you are seeing now are truly the tip of the iceberg – and that is true for all the contenders.

  • naschkatze

    I am not Anne but I do want to address the ridiculous charge that everyone who is an Edwards Supporter who criticizes Obama or does not attack HIllary must be a secret agent for the Clinton Machine.

    It disturbs me that Obama’s supporters can’t seem to hear any criticism without their first response to be an attack on the speaker as biased and therefore not worthy of speaking. It is a cheap trick to devalue the speaker so one doesn’t have to address the substance of the criticism.

    And it is what Obama appears to be doing when he attacks Bill instead of answering the questions many of us have about the inconsistencies in Obama’s own statements.

    Obama’s supporters need to understand that the democrats who don’t support him are also honest, intelligent, idealistic, informed and caring. They just don’t agree for example with Obama buying into false GOP talking points re St. Reagan and the GOP being the “party of ideas”. A lot of people found these statements problematic and were glad when both Clinton and Edwards criticized them.
    Obama still hasn’t addressed these criticisms. Instead he continues his so -called “positive” campaign by attacking Bill and ignoring Edwards.

    Further It is clear from the “hillary doesn’t respect Latinos’ Ad- that Obama’s union decided to engage in a nasty fight in Las Vegas. They just failed. So Bill’s statments that the Union was likely pressuring workers seems to have a lot of credibility. Again- to act like Obama is above any nastiness and everyone who supports him has always engaged in a positive campaign is really just to be placing blinders on and refusing to see things objectively. It makes Obama’s supporter and thier “don’t burst my bubble or I’ll never vote for a democrat again” arguments seem just like the arguments of the most virulent Bush supporters who saw any dissenters as terrorists.

    Again- some of us find this thinking inconsistent and wonder whether there is any authenticity behind the supposed Obama message.

    All sides have been engaged in politics. Acting self-rightous and trying to demonize others is not persuasive argument – it is just annoying and wrong.

    And if you were a true supporter of democracy and the free exchange of ideas you would acknowledge that fact and stop mindlessly criticizing those who disagree with you as biased. Unless you want to drive all those who disagree with you from this board so it can be just a circle jerk for Obama.
    It won’t get you more votes and will probably get you less- but if you can’t defend your candidate fairly maybe thats the best you can hope for.

  • Another trick The Clintons are using from Karl Rove… win with 50% + 1.

    They are happy to divide the Democrats, as long as their share equals barely half. As Bill Clinton has said, so stateman-like, “give me a break”.

  • Yesterday, Anne wrote that “Obama supporters have reached near-cult mentality“.

    Today, she writes, “I am not now, nor have I ever been a “Hillbot;” I am not anyone’s “bot,” thank you…”

    Those who live by the sword…

  • Truthsquad @ 39

    “Unless you want to drive all those who disagree with you from this board so it can be just a circle jerk for Obama.”

    There are already plenty of boards where Obama’s supporters drown out and swamp any dissent. I have stopped clicking on most of them, non-stop Obama adulation eventually is just too boring and uninformative.

  • “How can people truly claim they are progressive when the “alleged progressive”, Obama is more right to Hillary…”

    Whether Obama is more to the right of Hillary is quite debatable.

    But putting that aside–honesty, fairness and integrity are progressive values. Since Iowa, one of the candidates has demonstrated these qualities, and the other hasn’t.

  • “They just don’t agree for example with Obama buying into false GOP talking points re St. Reagan and the GOP being the “party of ideas”. A lot of people found these statements problematic and were glad when both Clinton and Edwards criticized them.

    Obama’s comments about Reagan and Republicans being the party of ideas have been addressed, in detail, ad naseum, by both CB and others over the past several days.

    And anybody who’s been paying attention to the news, knows that both Hillary and Bill have made similar statements complimenting Reagan and Republicans’ ability to put forward ideas (or to maintain that perception).

    But Obama’s actual statements were not criticized by the Clinton campaign. Rather, they were misrepresented.

  • Chris – I was accused – directly – of being a Hillbot. I don’t think I have ever accused anyone- by name – of being an Obamamaniac, but since you seem to be tracking every word I type, maybe you will have proof that I have.

    Observing that the support for Obama seems to be almost cult-like comes from the experience of many Obama supporters just flat-out refusing to even discuss the possibility that their candidate may not be perfect. Now, either I don’t understand what “cult-like” means, or the observation has some merit.

    I know what Edwards’ flaws are, and I know what Clinton’s flaws are – do you know what Obama’s flaws are?

    I didn’t think so.

  • I was undecided until maybe six weeks ago, when Bill Clinton started injecting himself into this race. Stuff like “Hillary will send me and Bush41 around the world as goodwill ambassadors”, and other left-field comments. I told my co-workers that I was torn between Clinton Nostalgia and Clinton Fatigue.

    Once the Fatigue set in (due to all the appearances of Bill in the media), I remembered that, given a choice, I would gladly support someone else. Then, the more I learned of Obama, the more I liked.

    Two weeks from tomorrow is Super Tuesday, just enough time for Bill to completely blow his legacy… and I think he will, because I believe he is demonstrating who the real Bill Clinton is.

  • do you know what Obama’s flaws are?

    Now, Anne, you know it isn’t nice to ask trick questions.
    The Messiah has no flaws.

  • “I was accused – directly – of being a Hillbot. I don’t think I have ever accused anyone- by name – of being an Obamamaniac

    As you know Anne, I was on the blog yesterday, and I’m here today. Contrary to your assertion, nobody is “tracking” anyone.

    With regard to whether you accused anyone “by name” — no you did not. That would have been bad enough. Instead you indiscriminately insulted all Obama supporters. And to his discredit, Zeitgeist has joined in on the fun.

  • Ferris at number 12, don’t know where you’re from, but all over America, every week, there are men at church who don’t want to sing each and every verse or every line of every single song, and it doesn’t have to do anything to do with the lyrics. What explains it is not liking singing that much that you want to sing every word you get a chance to, and there being planty of other people in the congregation to sing the song and make it sound nice. Maybe you think singing is wussy or you think your voice isn’t good.

    People who think we should start questioning the Christianity of anybody who doesn’t sing every line in church are more nutty than they are Christian.

  • And to his discredit, Zeitgeist has joined in on the fun.

    That’s not fair – I’m pretty sure I was complaining about the starry-eyed-ness and circular reasoning (“Obama is the best!” “Why?” “Because the best have Obama-like qualities!”) among many, many, many Obama supporters driving me nuts before Anne was. 🙂

  • Are you for real? Are these folks for real? Obama is the one who ATTACKED President Clinton by saying he had no ideas when he was President, that Ronald Reagan was a great President, and that the Republicans had all the ideas the past 15 years! Don’t you think President Clinton had a right to fight back! President Clinton is the greatest Democratic President since FDR, and Obama make a stupid, stupid blunder when he supported Reagan over President Clinton.

    I was leaning toward voting for Obama; NOT NOW!

  • Yes, I am a party person. You gotta choose a side. There is no independent politics in America. -Stella

    That’s really the gist of the whole divide, isn’t it? Democrats who think there is common ground to be found in America and Democrats who think it is their turn.

    I know what Edwards’ flaws are, and I know what Clinton’s flaws are – do you know what Obama’s flaws are? -Anne

    Oooo, ooo, pick me, pick me!

    Is it: he isn’t good at micromanaging? 🙂

    I hope that was good for some LOLs, the tone around these parts is decidedly bitter.

  • He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts

    Can someone tell me when this certified liar has ever told the truth? “I did not have sex with That Woman….” Yeah right, Bozo.

    The term “cracker” as applied to Southerners comes from “cracking trader,” a term that described “traveling entrepreneurs” in the South, who were mostly Scotch-Irish, who were notorious for operating on “let the buyer beware” and “there’s a sucker born every minute.” This perfectly describes “the boy from Hot Springs.” He’s conned everyone all his life.

    And people call him a “great President.” There hasn’t been a “great” Democratic president in 44 years.

  • Stellaa (#25) said You guys are hysterical about Bill, you need to get it checked. Its about Hillary. Get over it.

    The Clintons told us what was what in 1992: “with us, you get a two-fer.” It will always be about Hill and Billary.

  • The exact quote was:

    As near as I can tell, the Obama supporters have reached near-cult mentality, which has blinded them to the truth that their guy is not all by himself on the high road.

    “As near as I can tell,” means that what follows is based on my observation and my experience – it’s an opinion I’m entitled to – and I don’t carve it in stone and insist that I am right. The Obama supporters I have dealt with and talked with simply will not respond to anything that requires them to render an objective opinion about their candidate. Zeitgeist’s point is that – in his experience and mine – Obama supporters do not accept that their candidate has any flaws.

    Maybe you should look up the definition of “cult,” because I think you might find it helpful.

  • -Doug

    Not particularly defending Obama or anything, but in this thread alone people have already pointed out that all Obama said was that Reagan represented a change in the Republican party and that he had a fair amount of ideas. He didn’t really say whether that was good or bad or not, only that he, Obama, represented that same concept of change. People have been misconstruing that remark since he made it, much to their detriment and Obama’s.

  • When Obama made those remarks about Reagan, he was sucking up for the endorsement of the editorial board for one of Nevada’s conservative newspapers – think Washington Times.

    So, what was he really doing and what message were his words intended to convey? In my opinion, he was invoking the name of the icon of the GOP, hoping that code-word “Reagan” would signal that he isn’t one of those angry leftists that he spends a lot of time refusing to make eye contact with, in favor of the nice, more well-mannered people.

    Unfortunately, just because he is Barack Obama doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to live with how his words were perceived by Democrats and liberals who don’t happen to look fondly back on the Reagan years. We had days and days of Clinton explaining what she meant by her “it took a president” remark – why does Obama think he should be held to a different standard? Because when he says, or his surrogates say, that he didn’t mean it the way millions of people took it, that should be the end of it?

    Yeah, okay.

  • Doug (#51): Obama is the one who ATTACKED President Clinton by saying he had no ideas when he was President,

    So, Doug, outside of selling out every Democratic ideal and making the world safe for Wall Street (who returned the favor by hiring Chelsea as a “hedge fund executive” – a great job for a “Democrat”), what ideas did Bill have?

    Selling out American jobs to NAFTA and the WTO.

    Stimulating illegal immigration to the US by those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by subsidized American corporate agriculture.

    Selling out workers rights and environmental needs in his “globalization” strategy.

    Adopting Republican programs whenever possible.

    Bill Clinton is about as muc a “Democrat” as my kitten is.

    And like I said a month ago, the “shiny object” of the continuing Clinton psychodrama is doing just what their corporate masters want: distract us from the real issues.

    Hill and Billary are about as much good for America as Benazir Bhutto and her husband, “Mr. Ten Percent,” were for Pakistan.

  • -Anne

    Maybe not, but they should be talking about the meaning of the actual comment itself, not what they want it to mean. It was a boneheaded thing to say, and none of the campaigns are innocent of that particular error (to wit, ex-prez Clinton and any number of Edwards gaffes), but Obama’s been taking a lot of flack out of proportion to the other two candidates whenever they say something stupid or one of their people do.

    Expecting fairness and respect out of an election battle, especially in this day and age, may be more than a little stupid, but as a moral and ethical person it is something of a pipe dream of mine.

  • Just to put my two cents in…

    It’s extremely disappointing to me to see the Clinton campaign acting like Karl Rove is consulting it. I know that politics is an ugly business, but I thought that this election was about “change” and moving away from kneebiting is part of the change I’ve been hoping for. These tactics have solidified my support for Obama and taken some of the shine off Bill Clinton.

    I’ve said I don’t care who wins the nomination, but now I care who doesn’t. I’ll vote for Hillary in the general election if that’s who the party selects as the nominee, but her last minute push in Nevada — all of it — really ratched up my anti-Hillary tendency.

    I’m not alone.

  • Would Hillary choose Obama as her running-mate?

    And if that is the scenerio, is this Obama’s attempt to draw the line in the sand?

  • I have always been a reluctant Clinton supporter. I considered him the lesser of evils and gave him my vote. Even when I saw him making bald-face lies to the whole nation after foolishly falling into a perjury trap, I opposed his impeachment; but I resented that he put myself and the rest of his supporters in this position, and to my mind it forever took away any claims he had to any kind of moral high ground as the president. Also back in the 90’s, when Republicans sought to tag Hillary Clinton as an immoral and unprincipled spouse using her husband’s success and tolerating his lies and years of infidelity in order to gain political power for herself, I laughed it off.

    Now I find Bill Clinton striking moral poses about the necessity of truthful statements, and lo and behold after his above-the-fray ex-Presidential silence on George Bush’s seven-year reign of dishonesty and dishonor, he finally stirs into attack mode to run down Barack Obama, because the Illinois senator stands in the way of his wife’s restoration of the Clinton legacy. Well, folks, this time I really don’t have a good reply to the original canard about Mrs. Clinton’s moral squalor as the willing enabler of serial adultery, and believe me, it will be a daily feature of the fall contest against Senator McCain. Did she think her own moral imprint in the public consciousness would be unaffected by staying on with a husband who was discovered procuring oral sex from the White House staff? Do you believe that she thinks the issue is ‘off the table’ now? Somehow I doubt that the Republicans will cooperate.

    I think only a fabulist would believe the Republicans won’t mount an intensely moral and personal campaign against Mrs. Clinton, much more savage than anything that could be pursued against Senator Obama, and greatly abetted by the continuing immediate proximity and influence of her husband and his tawdry history. What we’ve all tried to forget, we will have to re-live day after day after day. She will be attacked for unseemly pardons to political cronies, a timid and ultimately disastrous healthcare plan that failed to pass a Democratic-controlled Congress, the miraculous appearance of old law-firm billing records in the White House living quarters, employing inside information to make a quick chunk of cash trading cattle futures, etc., and of course for tolerating her husband’s decades-long use of women. Perhaps of equal hazard, any hopes that the campaign will focus on Hillary– and not her spouse– hinge on Bill having remained adultery-free for the past seven years. Perhaps he has kept his pants on, we can only hope. Of course it’s unfair to her, but standing side by side with him, in the mainstream media narrative of the campaign, that’s a distinction without a difference.

    Hillary Clinton is so irretrievably wrapped up with Bill Clinton now that he has entered the campaign forcefully, all of his faults and foibles will fuel the Republican attack machine and effectively drown out any chance she has to establish her own campaign narrative. For much of the electorate her character has already been defined, and if you think the anti-Clinton attacks stopped because she rehabilitated her image, or the attacks were not effective, I think you’re wrong– they stopped because Bill Clinton was out of office. Of course they will return now that he’s running for office again. And yes, for all intents and purposes, he IS running for office again.

    I think most of Mrs. Clinton’s policy positions are a great improvement over the current regime, but in my judgment they’re entirely irrelevant because as things now stand she has no realistic change of being elected. I think the Republicans will nominate McCain and despite his many idiotic policy positions, the character contrast will be devastating to her. Are presidential campaigns fought on the battleground of character? Do most swing voters weigh perceived character when casting their votes? Will swing voters decide the crucial battleground states? Yes, yes and yes.

  • Where the heck is Howard Dean? As the Democratic national chairman, shouldn’t he be talking to the Clintons?

  • Gosh, has the Clinton campaign figgered out who the nominee is? Somedays, it seems to be Hillary. Other days, it’s Bill.

    In fact, what’s going on is that Bill is running through Hillary. She is unable to win without him. She is just his surrogate.

    She should send Bill to Iceland for some ice.

  • Hey, I understand that Hillary is going to choose a new campaign song for her campaign. She’s getting Loretta Lynne to sing “Stand by my man.” Hillary is standing by Bill, he’s standing by her, and they are a two-fer.

    For those of us who had about enuff of ol’ Bill and his ideas of recreation and triangulation, I don’t welcome this.

  • I for one am sick to death of the Clinton LIES,MISCONSTUALS, MISSTATEMENTS, and EXAGGERATIONS about Obama’s statements and OVERSTATEMENTS of his own record. Every time Bill opens his mouth, I get more annoyed. He’s lying all the time, he’s destroying the record of his administration, and he is poisoning the well of the Democratic Party.

    Who is running for President, Bill or Hillary?

  • Bill Clinton:

    “The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that…. This is a great day for our country. This is a day of honoring the legacy of President Reagan… As I stand within the Reagan Building I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off — to lead freedom’s march boldly into the 21st century.”

    Hillary Clinton:

    ‘He [Reagan] was a child of the Depression, so he understood it [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.’

    Obama’s statement:

    “… Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of that had been missing. ..I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren’t working.”

    Don’t see “great” in there. There’s “clarity”, “optimism”, “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship”, which are not ideas or policy.

  • I’m an Obama supporter. I state that at the get-go so that those of you who will dismiss my statements because you support another candidate can do move on to the next comment without wasting your time.

    I have never been a supporter of the Clintons. I was young during their reign, so all I have to go on is what I have read and the policies they enacted. I based my judgement on a variety of factors, but mostly what laws were enacted during their days. So I will start by questioning those “Democrats” who think the Clintons are real representatives of your party. I am not a member of any party. I am one of those “independents” whom some of you have disparaged so easily that you do not actually understand how our country works. But that does not matter. I would never join the Republican party because of my values and what I believe are the most important things to us as humans in general, and Americans in particular. But I cannot be a Democrat so long as the Clinton’s and their ilk are your chosen representatives.

    First off, I do not care if former President Clinton engaged in extramarital activity or not. I do care that he willingly chose to go before a camera and say to the American Public “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski” and then further showed his lack of character by stating “it depends on what your definition of is, is.” I am a true Progressive, who believe that progress does not need bold-faced lies to be promoted, but strength of character and principles by which one cannot waiver.

    Second, since delving into the Clinton years, I have stated numerous times: President Clinton was the best republican president we have ever had. He passed anti-union legislation that I strongly believe is have a direct (and perfectly predictable) outcome results today in our economic woes: NAFTA, WTO and numerous other “free-trade” agreements that only benefited the very wealthy at the expense of of the middle class. He passed that BS “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. I can go on, but if I took the time to research what actually went on during his Presidency, so can you.

    But most importantly, the reason I can never support the Clinton’s is actually tied to their treatment of women. I am 27 years old at the moment, so I was really only aware of Monica Lewinsky. In looking back at their record, Hillary Clinton and her allegedly-feminist allies did something that I think is morally deplorable and I can never accept from anyone: they attacked (repeatedly) any potential victims of Bill’s indescretion. I strongly believe they were planning on doing the same with Ms. Lewinsky (Hillary claiming a vast right-wing conspiracy was the start up of that) until there was DNA evidence that proved there was no conspiracy, only Bill being governed by the bigger of his two heads. How can any women support them? Ms. Lewinsky was a 23 year old intern that was seduced by a charismatic sitting President. Aside from the serious sexual harrasment implications that any corporate entity would face under similar circumstances, there is a moral issue I have because Bill was in a seat of power .

    Now if you want to discuss why I’m an Obama supporter, I would be happy to state my reasons. For now, I am stating why I cannot support the Clintons (and I know I can go on and on about this issue). No matter who you support, I hope you are not governed by blind stupidity because you have already made your choice and refuse to revisit your opinion. I am huge fan of FDR, not because of any one policy he made, but because he was okay with being a flip-flopper. He had no desire to be an ideologue, so he would try one policy and if that didn’t work, he would try another until he found a solution. Would that we could have another leader that had the courage to ignore the stupidity of the masses, and pursue the practicality of solutions.

  • I have a question for the Clinton supporters.

    Why is it so hard to admit that they both, individually and collectively, will do anything to maintain their power and to keep the Democratic party under their thumb?

    Their goals are those of any other self-serving politician-to honor the favors they’ve promised to their cronies and to maintain their power and influence.

    Everything that the Clintons have done (I say both because Hilary has sited her time in the White House as part of her Presidential hopeful CV) has been to maintain their sway.

    They stroke you with the velvet glove that encases the iron pimp hand and when you get out of pocket-SLAP!

    Their policies always seem to hurt the “voters” and “people” they love so much. They will throw you under the bus with the quickness. JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS. JUST LIKE BUSH.

    The proof is everywhere and this is a small taste:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano01222008.html

    http://thesubversivegarden.blogspot.com/2008/01/rewriting-history-corporate-mrs-clinton.html

    http://www.slate.com/id/2182065

    http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2008/01/the_politics_of_hopelessness.html

    If you’re going to support them at least admit that they are the same as the other side and oh yeah-watch out for that pimp hand I hear it’s deadly.

  • Clinton necessarily needs to get involved.

    The problem is WHERE HAS THE MEDIA BEEN? Last night was the first time that I (and I guess many others including the media) learned that Obama had this problematic relationship with one of his donors, or that he had voted “present” well over a hundred times while he served in the Illinois legislature. There was also a problem with a “land deal” that apparently embarrassed Obama. Maybe there’s nothing to all of this like all the “-gates” that were investigated by the

    How long has this campaign been going on? Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly the best vetted candidate in the history of the Republic, but we know almost nothing about Obama that we haven’t gotten from Obama. Isn’t that the job of the media, and what does it say about the media that they’re scrambling to get the dirt on Obama now after last night’s debate. Is it intentional or just laziness? It seems like at a minimum they should have been checking Obama out through the reputable Illinois media sources.

    It’s really a shame that the media have become so fat and lazy. Or is it that they don’t want to lose their meal tickets to the best parties by saying something negative and true about one of their favorite politicians?

    I’m not surprised that Clinton has had to play this role.

  • What the Clintons are doing is degrading to the democratic party. Bill Clinton is acting less like a former president and more like a dirty-trickster every day — his inability to tell the truth (whether under oath or on the campaign trail) is clear. Hillary appears unable to confront political opponents on her own — not a good image for the first serious woman candidate for president. What both Clintons are proving is that they will say and do anything and I mean anything to win. Republicans must be loving this. Clinton left us with a republican congress, cruel welfare reform, far to few democratic judges, and BUSH! What is intensely needed is real change, real integrity — in short, Obama!

  • The real problem with WJBC’s behavior is that it is deeply and profoundly unpresidential. Our country has an excellent tradition in which ex-Presidents disappear into the ether after they have served their term. Clinton, Carter, and Bush Sr. all have torn holes in this great tradition in the past few years. Now, Bill is essentially strong-arming caucus voters, browbeating reporters, and tell boldfaced lies.

    As to the merits of his administration:
    NAFTA
    End of welfare
    Support of 3 Strikes laws
    Bombing of “terrorist” bases
    Tax breaks for corporations
    Lower spending on social programs

    Boy that sounds alot like Ronnie’s agenda in 1980. Maybe Barack was actually complementing WJBC.

  • If you vote for Obama, you are a sexist pig. We know this from when Hillary lost the Iowa contest – and based on the people who run around hollering about “Hillary Haters.” Of course, that the same arguments are used by Hillary supporters as Bush supporters, doesn’t strike anyone as being somewhat, well, worrying.

    (EG: Obama’s support stems mostly from universities and highly educated people, therefore Obama supporters are intellectual elitist snobs. You know, just like those people who in 2000, wanted a president who could speak in complete sentences.)

    And hey, who wouldn’t want another 4 to 8 years under a president who proclaims all criticism to be basically by their “Haters.” Yeah, that sure has worked wonders for the US over the last eight years.

    If you vote for Hillary, you are a closet racist pig. That is the current message being spread by Obama’s supporters, because, well, you know those white folks voting in the primaries can’t actually disagree with Obama on anything.

    Anyone wonder why people vote Edwards?

  • Obama didn’t say the Republicans have been the party of GOOD ideas, just ideas. And he’s right, they have been. The ideas were ugly, but they were still ideas that invigorated their constituency. The Democrats have not come up with big ideas that invigorate their constituency in a very long time.

    It mystifies me why the very same people who have responded enthusiastically when George Lakoff says this are acting all offended because Obama said it.

  • Bruce Gorton,

    I have seen that very same post, almost word for word, on at least three different websites (huffingtonpost, raw story, and a few others). If you are going to promote a candidate, at least have the decency to either state a) “I’m using campaign rhetoric” or b) “I’m a volunteer/paid staff for a particular campaign”. It’s the only intellectually honest thing to do.

  • The very real problem America is facing in the Clinton political contests may be the same kinds of problems other families face in that America may not be ready for successful women, and has no measuring stick to identify what is appropriate or what isn’t in the defense of one’s spouse – in such a visible contest.

    If Obama has Oprah, it’s possible that Mrs. Clinton could get Dr. Phil.

    Adding such a dimension to the consternation America is feeling about whether or not former President Clinton would transcend his boundaries to make America feel ill at ease, or Hillary, and just how American men are expected to handle such unusual events is a labor of love that America should be willing to undertake – if female empowerment matters in America. As it’s most visible mascot, perhaps Dr. Phil’s examination and assessment might allay some fears, and help America navigate these difficult issues. If Obama has Oprah, why shouldn’t Hillary have Dr. Phil? Sounds like a great human interest story with obvious lessons for the entire nation. Who would have thought that Dr. Phil’s services would be required to elect a woman President?

    • Comments are closed.