Obama vs. Clinton (no, not that one)

One of the trickiest aspects of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is what, if anything, the candidates who aren’t named Clinton do about the Big Dog. Dems can’t praise him too much without helping Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and they can’t criticize him too much without alienating much of the party.

Indeed, by most reasonable measures, Bill Clinton is extremely popular with Democrats. It’s arguably one of the main factors behind Hillary’s success thus far. What are the other Dems to do?

Barack Obama, among others, is trying to thread the needle.

[Obama] said Clinton is running a textbook campaign based on political calculation, rather than a candid explanation of her policy positions. And, he widened blame for the nation’s problems to her husband’s and previous administrations.

The 2008 election is “a chance to come together and finally solve the challenges that were made worse by George Bush, but that in fact existed long before George Bush took office. Challenges like health care. Challenges like energy. Challenges like education.”

It was a subtle swipe at former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned in South Carolina for his wife earlier this week.

A Clinton campaign spokesperson responded, “It is disappointing that as his campaign stalls, Senator Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and launching a negative campaign against both Senator and President Clinton. Most Americans thought Bill Clinton was a good president who moved America forward.”

First, the “abandoning the politics of hope” line has grown very tiresome. Second, and more importantly, the campaign is right about Bill Clinton’s popularity. Obama, among others, seemingly wants to say, “Clinton was good, but we can do better.” It’s a difficult pitch to pull off.

Of course, Bill Clinton, being the political animal that he is, has decided to mix it up with his wife’s rivals.

In fact, yesterday on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton equated the criticism directed at Hillary from her primary rivals with the swiftboat lies against John Kerry in 2004.

The former president had encouraged an audience in Nevada Monday not to let “trivial matters” take away the election from the Democrats as they have in the past. He cited the television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry’s patriotism and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. was soft on terrorism. […]

“We listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff,” Clinton said. “And when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he’d done in his life. When that scandalous swift boat ad was run against Senator Kerry. When there was an ad that defeated Max Cleland in Georgia, a man that left half his body in Vietnam.”

“Why am I saying this? Because, I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” Clinton said.

The other Dems were less than pleased with the comparison. Obama said he was “pretty stunned” with the swiftboat comparison, while Chris Dodd called the Clintons’ response to the debate “outrageous.”

“To have the former president come out and suggest this is a form of swiftboating … is way over the top in my view,” Dodd told the AP, adding, “If elected to the presidency, there will be a lot of tough questions and if you can’t handle it in a debate without accusing everybody who has an issue with you of piling on or a sexist attack, somehow, first of all that’s unwise and, secondly, it’s false.”

It’s a dynamic worth keeping an eye on. I think the evidence suggests Bill Clinton’s presence on the trail is a huge benefit for his wife’s campaign, but it adds a new wrinkle when candidates are engaging in back-and-forth criticism with the frontrunner’s spouse — who happens to be the former president and one of the most popular figures in the party’s recent history.

Stay tuned.

***Obama said he was “pretty stunned” with the swiftboat comparison, while Chris Dodd called the Clintons’ response to the debate “outrageous.”***

Aw, sheesh people. Obama tries a cutesyland comment—taking a swipe at ‘Dog—because he’s getting his a$$ waxed by the wifey-poo? And then people get upset when ‘Dog returns the needle poke with a couple of rusty railroad spikes? Sometimes, I’d almost swear that Obama’s trying to make folks vote for HRC….

  • the “abandoning the politics of hope” line has grown very tiresome.

    I gotta disagree with you here, Steve. Obama was the one who wanted to run a campaign on the fumes of DC beltway fantasies of comity and unity. He’s the one who pushed the whole “politics of hope” thing. If he doesn’t want to run on it anymore fine (it’s a losing strategy and always has been – the only people it impresses are the members of the DC press corpse), but he’s the one who set himself up for it when he eventually HAD to start criticizing his opposition. He’s gonna get beaten over the head with it constantly, and frankly I think he DESERVES to get beaten over the head with it constantly – if only as a visible clue to the rest of the Democratic dingbats that this Unity politics is just a bunch of feel-good garbage that their beltway consultants have been losing elections with for 20+ years.

    Anyway, on top of that – gunning for Bill Clinton is a stupid strategy. Clinton is well-liked by a lot of Democrats (not me so much, but by a lot of them in general). And he’s not running for office. If you must attack Hillary Clinton (and since she is the front-runner, you must) ATTACK FRIGGIING HILLARY CLINTON. She’s done enough over the years in the Senate that you can blast her on – there’s no need to blast her by proxy.

    Of course, Obama doesn’t really disagree with the things that Clinton has done in the Senate that I find “blast-worthy” because he’s too invested in this whole “politics of Unity” claptrap himself. Those are the votes that Clinton is vulnerable on – the votes that point out to the base that she isn’t as liberal as their perceptions of her indicate – and those are the votes that Obama can’t attack. So he’s stuck himself in a corner – he wants to run as the Centrist Dem candidate but he came to the table and found out that Clinton was already sitting there. So now he’s just going to throw stupid crap at her until he finds something that sticks. And if that means attacking her by proxy through her husband instead of attacking her actual positions, well he’ll just do that. Pathetic.

  • The 2008 election is “a chance to come together and finally solve the challenges that were made worse by George Bush, but that in fact existed long before George Bush took office. Challenges like health care. Challenges like energy. Challenges like education.”

    If that’s “negative” campaigning, then I guess I must have an unnaturally high tolerance for ugly.
    Healthcare, energy and education have all been major challenges through every administration. Clinton did a much better job than Bush addressing them, but he certainly didn’t solve them by any stretch of the imagination. So Obama’s comment doesn’t really seem like a swipe at Clinton to me. It seems like an honest assessment of perennial problems that still haven’t been addressed satisfactorily.

  • Take away Bill Clinton and the gender thing, and Hillary Clinton’s appeal is… what exactly? Her bold stances on the issues? Her strong record of leadership and accomplishment as a Senator? Her enormous stable of consultants and political hacks?

    Hers is a celebrity campaign, a cult of personality endeavor without a particularly likable–or even discernable–personality.

    I support Obama precisely because he acknowledges that we have challenges in energy, education, healthcare, how we’re perceived around the world and, yes, the long-term sustainability of our best and most popular social insurance programs.

    Add in the fact that, unlike Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, he’s not so deep in the pockets of the champions of the status quo on those and other issues that he might actually take actions they might not approve of, and he’s the clear choice for anyone concerned about these issues.

  • First, the “abandoning the politics of hope” line has grown very tiresome.

    A-fucking-men.

  • I gotta disagree with you here, Steve. Obama was the one who wanted to run a campaign on the fumes of DC beltway fantasies of comity and unity. -NonyNony

    Obama never said he wouldn’t criticize people. He said he’d make an effort to find a middle ground and get the country to work together, like it did before Newt and Clinton polarized Washington.

    He’s allowed Clinton to frame his policy, which is a mistake on his part, but she’s still being disingenuous every time she or her minions whine about the politics of hope.

    Anyway, on top of that – gunning for Bill Clinton is a stupid strategy. Clinton is well-liked by a lot of Democrats (not me so much, but by a lot of them in general). And he’s not running for office. -NonyNony

    I think less engaged people think Hillary equates to Bill and that getting her in is an end-run around term limits. Boy, they’d be in for a shock.

    Of course, Obama doesn’t really disagree with the things that Clinton has done in the Senate that I find “blast-worthy” because he’s too invested in this whole “politics of Unity” claptrap himself. -NonyNony

    He disagrees with the AUMF in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and Kyl-Lieberman, which is enough for me to hope that as other candidates fall out of the race, he picks up their support, since the media has decried only Clinton and Obama are in the race.

  • First, the “abandoning the politics of hope” line has grown very tiresome.

    Maybe it has to politics junkies. To people who don’t usually dig deep beneath the headlines (by far, most people) it sounds like a pretty good jab. She’s proving herself to be a savvy fighter. After what the Republicans have given us the past 7 years (and during the Clinton presidency, too) let’s give them the pitbull in return, not the lapdogs.

  • “Why am I saying this? Because, I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” Clinton said.

    Bill… that depends on what your definition of cutesy land is.

  • He disagrees with the AUMF in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and Kyl-Lieberman,

    Then why the hell isn’t he making a point to point these things out?

    I know he disagreed with the AUMF and the Patriot Act – before he got to Congress. I’d like to believe he disagreed with them because of principle, but I’m still not convinced he didn’t see it as the safest bet for his future political career, since he wasn’t actually in the Senate. Even if that’s the case, I give him points for being not-as-stupid as the Dems who voted for the AUMF, despite the fact that being AGAINST it was the right move politically (and morally, but I never expect politicians to take a moral stance. I do expect them to not be politically tone deaf).

    I don’t know what he actually feels about Kyl-Lieberman because he dodged that vote. If he really opposed it, why didn’t he lead a fight AGAINST it instead of just not voting on it? It’s like he wanted it to pass without commiting himself for some reason – why, I don’t know, but if he was really opposed to it so strongly, there are a number of different tactics he could have used to scuttle it in the Senate rather than just ignoring the vote. That would have been leadership – what he did just looks like political maneuvering.

    Obama never said he wouldn’t criticize people. He said he’d make an effort to find a middle ground and get the country to work together, like it did before Newt and Clinton polarized Washington.

    As I said – inside the Beltway comity crap. I remember Tip O’Neil and Reagan – they were nicer to each other in public than Gingrich and Clinton were but that’s about it. The beltway nutters don’t seem to realize that the discourse was poisoned not by Gingrich and Clinton, but by Nixon and his ilk for Republican political gains. And Obama is just parroting this lie and it’s irritating – he may believe it or he may find it politically expedient to repeat it but either way it grates.

    And, like I said, I have zero problem with Obama criticizing Hillary Clinton – more people SHOULD be criticizing Hillary Clinton. I think he’s an idiot for criticizing Hillary Clinton by way of Bill Clinton. A lot of Dems LIKE Bill Clinton – tarring him brings back knee-jerk defenses for a lot of Dems who got used to defending Clinton from fools with Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the 90s. But it also plays right into the narrative that Hillary Clinton is being treated differently because she’s a woman. No one cares about the spouses of the other candidates, but Clinton gets attacked because of who she’s married to? That isn’t going to sit right with some folks, and Obama should be avoiding it. Yes, it is different because her husband is a former president, but it’s STILL playing into the narrative in a way that makes Obama look petty.

    I want a candidate that is criticizing Clinton on her merits, not taking swipes at her husband. And she has racked up so many things to be critical of that these little swipes just make me think that Obama has very little substance to differentiate himself from Clinton with.

  • I have to agree with the last paragraph of #9. I think Obama is looking weak at this point because he’s hedging his bets in the event he becomes the VP nominee with Hillary. He may just want to avoid a major clash, and this makes sense under the current huge lead Hillary has in the polls. I could be way off, but I don’t see Edwards filling the VP role at this point.

  • I don’t know what he actually feels about Kyl-Lieberman because he dodged that vote. If he really opposed it, why didn’t he lead a fight AGAINST it instead of just not voting on it? -NonyNony

    Oh, I 100% agree. I was very disappointed he skipped that. I was basing his opposition on recent statements.

    I think this speaks to a greater degree about the failure of leadership among the ‘top tier’ candidates as well. None of them have exhibited much leadership in their current (or recent past) elected offices.

  • Amen, dajafi.

    Unfortunately Hillary is too much of a celebrity and has the Clinton machine on her side. It’s nauseating to watch her calculating non-answers. Her leadership has been non-existent. She has waited for Edwards and Obama to deliver their major policy proposals before unveiling hers every time. Her energy plan released this week is a case in point.
    She won’t commit to any specifics on Social Security and a host of other issues. If I don’t know what she wants to do, why am I voting for her? Her evasiveness guarantees she won’t have a mandate for whatever “centrist” policies she eventually decides to unveil after she squeeks through the general election. It will be four more years of gridlock. And I think her chances of winning a second term are dubious.

    I want a deep thinker who isn’t afraid to challenge the conventional, stultifying DC wisdom, which is Obama. Also, I can almost guarantee you that Hillary will hurt down-ticket candidates. And as for the Dems picking up the interior west states? Forget about it.

    I’m pretty much resigned to a Hillary candidacy. I can’t stand watching my party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

    And one more thing: Do we really want two families to be in control of the country for what could potentially be 28 years? That alone disqualifies Hillary in my book.

    Sigh. Well, that’s my rant for the day.

  • i think that Obama should become president! bush was the one who brought on the war he could’ve ended it a long time ago! he only did a few good things for us like the NCLB act! but the part where he listens to our phone conversations is messed up!!!! peace im out!

  • Comments are closed.