Bill Clinton Rips Obama In Charlie Rose Interview
Bill Clinton is definitely taking the gloves off against Barack Obama. In an interview with Charlie Rose, taped last night, Bill said the following:
• That "it's not close" in terms of how much better prepared Hillary is to be president;
• That picking Obama would be a "risk";
• Likened nominating Obama to picking "a gifted television commentator";
• Criticized Obama for beginning his presidential campaign after only one year in the Senate;
• Called Obama a mere "symbol for change," adding that "symbol is not as important as substance";
Bill also sought to downplay expectations for Hillary in Iowa, saying that "It's a miracle she even has a chance."
The bottom line: The next three weeks ought to be really fun.
Late Update: Check out this truly brutal excerpt:
Late Late Update: The whole thing is available here.
Comments (319)
SJW wrote on December 15, 2007 1:13 PM:I hope that Obama (and, just as importantly, his campaign staff) doesn't take the "bait." He should let the nasty comments slide (but use them to his advantage), saying something like, "I don't see how this elevates political discourse or helps his wife's campaign. And such statements are precisely why we need change in Washington ..."
Michael wrote on December 15, 2007 1:21 PM:As could be expected, the Clinton's put their own self-interests ahead of those of the party and the country. It's more worthwhile to hurt Obama's GE electability in the service of denying him the nomination than it is to try to win the nomination on the merits in the first. That's nice.
I used to like Bill. Now I can't wait till he's out of politics. If Obama is the GE, of course there will be GOP ads with Bill saying he's not ready and what not. Awesome. Thanks Bill! Really doing the party a great service there!
Josh wrote on December 15, 2007 1:21 PM:Desperate much?
savvy wrote on December 15, 2007 1:22 PM:I agree SJW
I am also glad that Rose has a very limited viewing market. Most of the masses never even heard of Rose. I suppose WJC's remarks will be put into a soundbite replayed on Hardball,CNN and Fox though.
Now, we know what Bill has been saying to the status quo politicians endorsing Hillary.
This makes me wonder how much of a fair game it is for hits to now start about Bill's tawdry and licentious behavior.
That should be a real American concern to have to be dragged through all that lasciviousness again.
I expect Larry Flynn to expose Clintons philandering sense leaving the WH, following this Rose interview.
Things are going to get nasty.
Afterall, Obama may be the political opponent, but he did not raise 75M because Hillary is so well liked. Lots of people unassociated with Obama's campaign will use this as incentive to come out and knock the Clintons.
Geffen told us a long time ago that not only are the Clintons extraordinary liars but they also do it with exceptional ease.
Seems like this Rose interview fits what Geffen said.
DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 1:23 PM:Well put SJW, I echo those sentiments.
People keep saying it's a sign of weakness to not respond to attacks, but the circumstances right now are a little unusual. Hillary is tanking and every time she (or a surrogate, authorized or not) attacks, it is perceived not as contrasting or explaining, but as dirty politics and negativity. Clearly this stuff has backfired on her at about a 95% clip, so rather than entangling himself in this "debate," he should just let the media, already looking for any chance to punch Hillary, do his bidding for him.
Also, is it just me, or has Bill's involvement in this campaign severely diminished his post-presidency reputation. We had a good run with Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, through all their humanitarian efforts. But now it seems like, as people turn on Hillary, they are starting to turn on Bill a little bit too. Maybe not the people who aren't watching closely, but at least the "insiders" and politicos here in the blogosphere seem to be. Again, that might be just me though...
Peter wrote on December 15, 2007 1:24 PM:Bill says Hilary is the real change candidate. 4 more years of a Clinton Presidency. How does that sound or look like a change?
This fits into Obamas message of change because like it or not Bill really is the top class of partisan politics. His comments help no one but Republicans.
When will someone ask precisely how it is that Hillary is "more qualified" than Obama? What experience did she gain while First Lady that somehow makes her so much better prepared?
Andrew Sullivan notes that WJC was nervously wringing his hands and red-faced during parts of the interview discussing problems Hillary has had. Shall be interesting to see if that makes it onto TV.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 1:25 PM:For a different take..
The Atlantic
Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton's staff was asking producers in his show's control room to get them to have Rose end the interview. And Clinton said: "Somebody will parse this interview..." to take his quotes out of context. "It is stupid... I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people." They may parse his body language. Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in.
Doggie Alzheimer's Big Dog Rambles on Charlie Rose
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/bill_clinton_well_he_just_puts_1.php
The more Mrs Bill's Ball and Chain rambles, the happier her opponents will be
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 1:30 PM:Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:35bvd wrote on December 15, 2007 1:35 PM:Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:31
Said it before and I'll it again: if Hillary gets the nom the Repugs will make sure that the general public has a relapse of "Clinton Fatigue" long before the autumn. And good ol' Bill is proving my point. Why on earth would anyone want to live through this nonsense again?
I'll vote for her if she gets the nom but I'm praying she doesn't.
LJ wrote on December 15, 2007 1:41 PM:Wouldn't it be awesome if Joe Biden somehow charged to the front and won the Iowa caucuses? Or Chris Dodd? I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.
This experience argument from Hillary is such a house of cards. She has the experience of voting in favor of the Iraq War. She has the experience of wiping her ass with the bill of rights when she voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She has the experience of voting for federal control of schools in the form of No Child Left Behind.
Steve LaBonne wrote on December 15, 2007 1:43 PM:Remind me again, how many years did Bill Clinton serve in national office before running for President?
breakspear wrote on December 15, 2007 1:45 PM:just.remember.folks.hating.and/or.not.liking.the.Clintons.is.one.thing.but.having.the.Republicans.retain.the.WH.is.not.an.option...they.dont.deserve.to.have.any.leadership.positions.for.years.to.come.for.foisting.GWB.onto.this.country...the.GOP.needs.to.pay.for.W.and.in.spades...
NYFM wrote on December 15, 2007 1:53 PM:Well I happen to agree with Bill, and I also hope somehow Biden or Dodd comes out of Iowa with major mojo. Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine. Indeed, it's not even close.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 1:53 PM:Steve LaBonne -
FYi, Clinton was governor of AR for 10 years, a founder of DLC, and the head of NGA.
JFK was a two-term senator like Mrs. Clinton.
One cannot dream change. You have to work for change.
lampwick wrote on December 15, 2007 1:55 PM:Lipstick on a pig, Bill.
Katie wrote on December 15, 2007 1:56 PM:It is far past time for these two to politely go back to their respective careers.He is beginning to look a lot like a used car salesman and she is looking just like what she is. I am sick to death of both of them and how they are out for nothing but themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 1:57 PM:http://www.rjmatson.com/frames_N.htm
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 1:59 PM:The perception that somehow "Hillary is tanking" is not supported by the polls. If you follow the history of the Rasmussen tracking polls, the numbers now ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL to when they first started to poll about 18 months ago. There have been blips up and down over that time, but substantially, ALL CANDIDATES HAVE CLOSE TO THE SAME SUPPORT THEY DID STARTING OUT.
I realize polls are not necessarily good indicators of an ultimate outcome, but they are the best we have at the moment.
All the blather in the media about the Clinton campaign "faltering" and Obama "surging" seems more an effort to create a horse race, and perk up consumer interest in the process.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:00 PM:Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine.
I think recent events should disspell this notion once and for all. He's handling the likes of the Clinton with grace and aplomb. But hey, keep underestimating him, it's your right.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:01 PM:What was Bill's big resume like when he took office? Gov. of a s-hole state? What is Hillary's big resume? Voting yes on a war of choice, helping Bill decimate the social safety net, and being a freshman Senator? Let us not forget, Hillary got the Democratic Party affiliation effed into her, she was a Republican until Bill.
Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl. Just look at her voting record, Republican thru and thru
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:01 PM:There may be a lot of upside in Obama but can we really take this risk at this time? He said he could change the course of this country by getting people togehter? Just by talking a good talk? Has he ever shown that?
clinton, on the other hand, has worked across the aisle at many occassions to bring about meaningful changes. She works with Sam Brownback, she works with Hagel. heck, she even works with Newt Gingrich on health information reform.
I know you hate Clinton because she may turn out to be a moderate like her husband.
You extreminists will be losers at any society!
Will wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:If Bill wants to support his wife for President over the other guy, it doesn't matter to me. He is, in fact, the only Democrat elected to office in 28 years.
Obama's main strength is representing change, and the fact that he is a Washington outsider. Yet, of any of the Republicans he runs against - Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani - who is the Washington insider? Obama is!
Call me pessimistic, but I don't see Hillary or Obama winning the general election, and I'm not in love with Hillary by any means. I just think she has the better chance to win of the two.
We shall see...
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:Robert Ethan:
Have you looked at the trends on pollster for Iowa and New Hampshire? Not a pretty picture for HRC.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
bg wrote on December 15, 2007 2:03 PM:I'm in Obama's camp precisely because of his experience. In his adult life he has worked as a civil rights attorney, professor of constitutional law, community organizer, state senator, and now United States Senator. It is a clear record of a life lived in the public interest, and compares very favorably to the biography of not only Clinton, but John Edwards, a multi-million dollar trial lawyer who would have you believe that he's William Jennings Bryan. I would challenge the pundits to flesh out the question of experience, rather than let it hang mutely as some ill-defined qualification for the presidency. Does it mean that one has been "vetted"? Does it mean that one was built up a network of politically advantageous relationships? Is it about statecraft? Biography? The question as posed in the media is being too broadly framed, and should be addressed with respect for its complexity.
F.Igwealor wrote on December 15, 2007 2:04 PM:Bill’s attack on Obama is a sign of bigger desperation from the Clinton campaign. It will not have any effect on Obama surge. Moreover, Bill’s support for Edwards to win Iowa is also a sign of how devious the Clintons are; knowing fully well that Edwards lacks enough money to mount a serious challenge on Hillary, an Edwards’ win invariably, according to Bill is a Hillary win.
Hillary Clinton Campaign is a sinking ship
The most recent early states and national polls show that Hillary's campaign, which until her Philly debate fumble was a poll-dominant inevitability, is currently sinking lower every day. And there seem to be that no effort being make to stop the decline was working. Below are several of the efforts to save Hillary's campaign that has failed:
* CNN's rigged debate and after debate spin
* Her campaign's rush to play the gender card
* Bill complaining of his wife being pilled on
* Arm-twisting of the NY Gov to help her on immigration
* Bill's daily show in Iowa
* Her accusation of the opponents for mud-slinging
* Novak's scandal rumor
Below are Hillary's campaign new efforts that will not save it from crashing to the ground:
* Her current mud-slinging on Obama
* Racking up thousand and one endorsements
* Even the endorsement of NH's Gov's wife, Dr. Susan Lynch
* Going to church on Sunday
* Aggressively attacking Obama
* New emphasis on her (actually John Edward's) healthcare
* Getting all the Senators, Congressmen, and other members of the democratic establishment to endorse her
With all due respect to the theory of inevitability, which was built on polls, Hillary's current consistent slide in the polls and her current lack-luster performance in match-up against top 5 Republican nomination candidates is the final straw that broke the Carmel's back.
Now, Bill is out and telling us to expect Hillary to loose Iowa, NH, and SC and still win the nomination. I thought that Bill’s admission means that Evita is dead, but good old Bill would want to keep people in the dark as to the status of the race.
Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign is crumbling faster than Dean's and do not expect that downside momentum to stop.
If Hillary loose Iowa and NH to Obama, she is out of this race.
Barack Obama seems like a brilliant and eloquent man, but I'm appalled at the level of discourse and intellect displayed by his supporters in these comments.
It seems true of every other blog I've looked at as well. With all due respect to the man himself, he has the ugliest, lowest common denominator, following of all the candidates by a good margin. Maybe it's the Oprah factor.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:07 PM:Or maybe it's a response to the vitrol and insulting comments like yours from HRC supporters.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:09 PM:For you Obama girls who love to compare Obamer to JFK, let's compare their experience. Obama may have enough experience to serve as JFK's butler:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917–November 22, 1963), was the thirty-fifth President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.
After Kennedy's leadership as commander of the USS PT-109 during World War II in the South Pacific, his aspirations turned political. Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961. Kennedy defeated former Vice President and Republican candidate Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. presidential election, one of the closest in American history. To date, he is the only practicing Roman Catholic to be elected President and the only President to have won a Pulitzer Prize.[1] His administration witnessed the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, the American Civil Rights Movement and early events of the Vietnam War.
Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime, but was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had acted alone in killing the president; however, the House Select Committee on Assassinations declared in 1979 that there may have been a conspiracy. The entire subject remains controversial, with multiple theories about the assassination still being debated. The event proved to be a poignant moment in U.S. history due to its impact on the nation and the ensuing political fallout. Many regard President Kennedy as an icon of American hopes and aspirations; he continues to rank highly in public opinion ratings of former U.S. presidents.[2]
I knew Hillary's campaign was gonna do some counterproductive things when numbers went south, but thought Bill would be smart enough to avoid it. He was a great president, but let's face it: his personal integrity and judgement are a tenth of Obama's. This is just more proof.
I mean seriously...how do any of the 5 bullet points listed in the article above do anything other than hurt his wife's chances against Obama? How does likening Obama to "a gifted television commentator" help HRC's campaign?
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 2:12 PM:Absolutely anon, I had to read bobby's post twice. I thought he was referring to clinton II people. They are bar none the worst. It's just insults and spin, no discourse. I guess that's what the talking points are, just hurl insults. I can't wait until the clintons are out to pasture. Its time to turn the page.
Avoid Abble Aphteral wrote on December 15, 2007 2:15 PM:It is the Democratic Party, not the DLC or the Bill 'n Hill show.
Anon wrote on December 15, 2007 2:15 PM:The Clintons have passed their prime. Now they are starting to embarrass themselves. Wait. They started doing that some time ago.
Clinton fatigue already.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 2:16 PM:it's just insults and spin
Actually, that's been Obama's campaign for the last 6 weeks. His people HATE Hillary. It's a campaign driven out of mis-guided hate. They don't even know who Obama is. President Clinton is right, Obama is a risk. The Republicans would destroy him. It's going to be Hillary, so all haters should watch your language and get ready for Denver. We need to be a united party in November.
Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.
Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.
Moreover, his state senate record is equally spotty...voting present. Great job taking a stand Barak.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:02 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Have you looked at the trends on pollster for Iowa and New Hampshire? Not a pretty picture for HRC.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Well, if I'm following all those squiggly lines correctly, Keith, it seems to me that Hillary's national support has been constant throughout the process, and so has her Iowa support. Obama appears to have risen in Iowa at the expense of Edwards. Tacky graphs aside, how is it "not a pretty picture" for HRC?
IIRC, Howard Dean was in the EXACT POSITION THAT OBAMA IS NOW, four years ago in regard to Iowa. Running on the same mantra, depending on the same demographic, and utilizing the same methods.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:I don't have anything bad to say about any of these people . . . well except Obama.
Thanks Bill.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:18 PM:How about if we compare Obama to Hillary?
Hillary is a one term Senator who has not passed any substatiative legislation. Obama is a one term Senator who has passed substatiative legislation.
Obama did it on his own. Hillary got elected in NY due to her husband having been President. Obama is self made. Is Hillary?
Which one knew the war with Iraq was folly? Who has always voted against it?
It wasn't the one who married her way into the White House.
Hillary will not win the White House, the only question is whether the Democratic Party will self immolate itself again.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 2:21 PM:Mike timmons.............you're pathetic. Do a little research before you make a post.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:22 PM:Robert Ethan:
Sorry, Dean reference doesn't apply here. Dean was the prohibitive front runner for MONTHS coming into December. Obama is just now claiming that mantle, if the polls are to be believed. If anyone fits that mantle, then it would be the quasi-incumbent HRC who's been the front runner since late this summer.
And the Laugh on Thursday reminded me of the Scream.....
mg wrote on December 15, 2007 2:23 PM:Marc Ambinder and ABCNews' Chalian saw things quite differently from this rather interesting take here at TPM. I won't reprint what is already posted upstream but in summary they viewed it as the sad ramblings of a past his prime politician trying to fight off the new guy.
Times are changing and alot of us are ready to turn the page. "Can't we all just get along?"--it is still the Democratic party and not the Clintoncratic party.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:24 PM:In Iowa, Hillary was at 31% in November. Now she is at 24. Obama was at 22 in Nov. Now, he is at 34.
Using real math, that would mean that Obama is now leading, as opposed to in Nov. when he was trailing.
Looks like you must have gone to the GW Bush school of fuzzy math, Ethan. Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater.
Ni Daye wrote on December 15, 2007 2:25 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:
Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.
Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.
---- Anonymous, you are right! And that's the reason I think Hillary's support in Iowa is under-reported although it may be my wishful thinking.
a). How many young hot-heads will make their way back to Iowa for caucusing.
b). Whoever chooss Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, he or she chooses experience. do you believe their supporters will switch from people who have a lot of experience to someone with no experience but a good functioning mouth?
c). I believe eventually a lot of experienced people will be offended by Obama's touting of his inexperience and so called born superb judgement. I believe Ted kennedy will soon endorse clinton. He will tell Obama: Senator O, I know you a little bit for the days you show up for work, I know President kennedy very well. Sir, you are no jack kennedy!
Thanks Blue Dog . . . I'll see your misguided hate and raise you with a campaign with no direction and supporters who's only rationale for supporting their candidate is fear.
This is just example #9,221 of the politics of fear as practiced by Clinton during this primary.
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 2:27 PM:There you go again bluedog. It's all just hate, hate, hate, hate. When in doubt throw out the hate card. Nobody raises a valid point obout clinton II they just hate her right. You clinton II lovers just crack me up. The bottom line is all dem sheep should just get in line and praise the queen. Just wait for the coronation.
The problem is that she will get slaughtered in the general election. She's spinning out of control over stupid misteps that were her own doing. The republicans will make mincemeat out of her.
If the republicans nominate the huckster, she doesn't have a chance. The other ones, it would have to be blind luck that she wins, but in the long run democracy and america loses. If she's the nominee, I am willing to bet the dems don't even hold the senate and lose seats in the house. Is that what the dems want? More stagnation. Anybody but clinton II in 08.
DRinOH,
The point about our ex-Presidents losing their moral capital is a very important one to me, because senior statesmen have tended to put a sunnier face on America to the world lately.
Jimmy Carter has tremendous gravitas on the world stage still, but he's 83. What if HRC is the nominee (and the Dems remain likely to win)? If Bill circles the wagons with Hillary right now, and Hillary can't afford to associate herself with George W. Bush, and H.W. aligns himself with his son, what are we left with?
Carter, who is a saint but whose health can't be expected to take him through another decade.
Both Bushes, who will be drawn down together by the legacy of the younger.
Bill Clinton, who can probably keep his Global Initiative up but might be stretched too thin due to a bitter campaign with his wife (if HRC goes into the general election).
Rather than a roster of 4 ex-Presidents who, whatever their shortcomings, can still command moral authority and big-time capital in a tragedy, we're left with two dynastic camps simmering at each other.
We have Carter as long as he holds out, and Gore should he decide to remain out of politics, but is it enough?
Bear in mind that favorable opinion of the USA in Indonesia hovered around 70% at the end of Clinton's term for our unconditional backing despite atrocities against East Timor. Islamic solidarity dropped that opinion to 15% by the time of the tsunami, in the world's largest Muslim country (smack between allies India, Australia, and Singapore). We *had* to do some damage control in Indonesia, and the tsunami was our opening. If such a scenario happens again, would we be able to capitalize on an opening if our bench hates each other openly and on the record?
donna L. wrote on December 15, 2007 2:27 PM:In the Charlie Rose interview, Bill repeats the lie that he did not run in 1988 because he felt he was too inexperienced. Here two accounts that dispute his claim:
From a review of Carl Bernstein's book "A Woman in Charge"
http://www.augustfalling.com/index.php?s=holed
Bill Clinton, Candidate
Bill Clinton always had his eye on the Presidency. It was where he could do the most good. He considered running in 1988, but decided against it. One issue was the amount of time it would take away from his family life–both he and Hillary were determined to be good parents. The real reason, though, was that at that time, his problems with women would have sunk his campaign.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-clinton-e.html
Obama, Clinton, Experience
01 Oct 2007 09:50 am
Bob Reich counters the Clintons on the experience question:
While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.
The longer this slimefest drags on, the more I lose respect for Bill Clinton.
I have a 2-word answer for the Clintons and all those attacking Obama's lack of experience: Abraham Lincoln.
Prior to 1860, Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature. His only national political experience consisted of a single term in the House of Representative - a seat he lost because he opposed Polk's War in Mexico. He later lost 2 U.S. Senate races but became a national figure due to the wisdom and brilliance of his speeches.
Sound familiar?
mydd's devasting take on Obama wrote on December 15, 2007 2:31 PM:Preacher Barack Obama
by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:12:12 PM EST
Talking smack:
"I take the Clinton campaign's word that they didn't know what this guy was doing and I understand all that," Obama said, "but the one thing I will say is I told my staff that if I catch you guys doing any kind of stuff like this you're fired. Period."
"And I think what we need to do -- and I told this to senator Clinton yesterday -- is that we need to send a strong message to all of our surrogates and all of our staffs, that we don't play that," he said. "I know my staff has gotten that message because it's one that I delivered several months ago and I haven't seen that come out of their mouths."
Yes, that's why Barack Obama fired those staffers of his that came up with the racial slur Punjab-D to describe Clinton; and that's why Obama's fired the staffer that sidled up to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, to ask "when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post presidential sex life." That's probably Robert Gibbs, one of the sleaziest of the sleazy, that works as Obama's Communications Director.
Right.
This drug stuff was a timid issue that the Obama campaign over reacted too, making it a bigger story than it needed to be. And now Obama is starting to sound petty and thin-skinned. What's Obama gonna do in the general election when he confronts a real propoganda takedown machine? Is he gonna lecture them while they rip him to pieces?
Update [2007-12-14 22:4:38 by Jerome Armstrong]: This whole drug thing is annoying and stupid. Shaheen was a jerk for making that statement. I wish the Obama campaign would have just ignored it. I tried to not blog at all about it, then nearly did so because of that stupid Hardball episode this am, and managed to avoid it, but then came across this ridiculous spin by Obama-- long past when it should have been dead.
That said, I do think there might be something there about this having traction among the black community moving toward Obama-- and that might be why they are milking it politically. But if so, it's a short-term gain when compared with the longterm result of Republicans having an easier time re-opening the issue-- with a much harsher attack.
Bostonian wrote on December 15, 2007 2:32 PM:just watched the whole video and that may have been Bill's worst ever case for hillary as president i've ever seen. it almost made me wonder if Bill doesn't actually want hillary to be president for some reason or if he's just lost his touch. hillary's campaign might want to keep him quiet and try to win on their own (or at the very least force him to go all positive.)
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 2:33 PM:I guess I should tell you HRC lovers that, no, I will not support her in the general since I will not put my mark next to someone who voted yes for the war in Iraq, and has not apologized for it, and continues to defend her vote.
I will not vote for a Iraq war supporter in November. I put my country before my party.
How about you Bluedog? Constitution before Party? Who voted for the Patriot Act?
It wasn't Obama.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:34 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:22 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Sorry, Dean reference doesn't apply here. Dean was the prohibitive front runner for MONTHS coming into December. Obama is just now claiming that mantle, if the polls are to be believed. If anyone fits that mantle, then it would be the quasi-incumbent HRC who's been the front runner since late this summer.
And the Laugh on Thursday reminded me of the Scream.....
I'm talking about Iowa. At EXACTLY THIS POINT 4 YEARS AGO Dean was "surging into the lead" in Iowa. By about the same margin that the Research 2000 poll gives Obama. He had all the accolytes on the ground preaching "change", "hope", "anti-establishment", etc.
Also you cannot compare Hillary's national lead to Dean's, because H C has had that level of support SINCE BEFORE HOWARD DEAN DECLARED HIS CANDIDACY 6 years ago. Dean was the anti-establishment "fresh face" who came out of relative obscurity and pushed his way up the charts on the basis of "momentum".
Barack Obama is Howard Dean four years on.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:34 PM:Jerome Armstrong has no credibility.
c wrote on December 15, 2007 2:35 PM:I think it's sweet that he's so invested in her success, and if that's the toughest argument he can make against Obama I'm not all that worried!
RWn wrote on December 15, 2007 2:35 PM:Inevitability has led to scorched earth politique....Read this Clintonites....I know you are monitoring and infusing your efforts here and everywhere....
Lincoln didn't have the experience you are talking about....Neither did Ted Roosevelt or his cousin Franklin....
Oh my they might be considered the greatest ever....but let us ignore that and focus in on the obvious....Clinton's campaign is inevitably messed up tactically and strategically and the country an't buying what you are selling.
Obama is going away...and I hope he and Edwards form the dream team and bring down the entire corporate cabal you are not supporting
"Barack Obama is Howard Dean four years on"
And how did supporting "the electable candidate" work out for the Democratic Party in 2004?
Maybe we should have nominated Dean, ethan.
Bush could not have bashed Dean as flip flopping on the war, and maybe Dean would not have listened to Donna Brazille and those other perennial "Democratic insiders". Maybe we would have won.
Anonymous @ 2:17 posted:
He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...
Oh, that is completely disingenuous, and you know it.
How about the Federal Funding Accountability Act of 2006? That counts as 'nothing'? (source: dailykos diary by 'barath')
How about the The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)? Is that 'nothing'?
How about the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act (S. 969) which deals with Bird Flu, and was introduced in early 2005, well *before* the US panic began in 2006.
How about the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180), to help homeless Veterans?
I'm not saying that you should support Barack. I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting another candidate. However, be honest with yourself, and be honest with everyone else, and don't make these stupid, easily disputed claims.
(Source for bills was democratic underground)
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:42 PM:Robert Ethan:
Google. It's a wonderful thing:
http://www.kcci.com/politics/2440457/detail.html
I wasn't comparing national polls, because they aren't relevant at this point. The closer we get to February 5th, they'll be operative. But right now, I'm looking at the polls were the most people are engaged and seeing the candidates. Where that's happening, the trends don't favor your candidate. That may change, but at this point in the game, the trends don't favor her.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 2:46 PM:Good news for Obama:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/15/54158/397/946/422120
Let's see if there's any coverage of the fruits Obama's hard work to make DC more open and accountable, especially in light of Clinton's insinuation that Obama is not a hard worker.
opulent wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:I watched the Rose interview and came away convinced that Obama is the best candidate to win the nomination and who will win election to the WH in a landslide.
One thing I quickly noted was that despite Rose asking Bill several times to tell us Hilliarys substance, Bill couldn't and/or failed to do so. Think about that. He claimed that a person needs vision and substance. We know Hillary lacks vision so her why wasn't Bill prepared to delineate and roll over his tongue bullet point by bullet point precisely what Hillary has done? Because there is nothing there and he knows it.
What Bill revealed to me given that he is the consumate politician is that he is in awe of Obama. While I did not hear the 'gifted TVcommenatator' I was struck and heard instead how Bill said that Obama has STAGGERING political skills and he has massive political ability.
THAT's the important piece.
Why?
Because it is those skills which have catapaulted Obama to the national stage and which enable him to run toe to toe with the Clintons and most importantly it is those very skills which will allow Obama to govern this country, transcend partisiaship, broker treaties and resolutions with foreign leaders and actually produce outcomes domestically and internationally as he restores Americas greatness. It is those skills that enabled Obama to some of the most controversial legislation ever on ethics, healthreform and the death penalty in the Illinois legislature despite their being a GOP majority. Just as he was elected to the Harvard Law Review by his peers becasue they recognized his ability to support and represent their views. Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician with empathy and compassion for Americans and the great traditions of this country. He will be one of our greatest Presidents, because of his ability to not only meld consensus, but to lead with judgment and moral clarity.
Obama has a lifetime of demonstrated substance. He has worked hard in the community and not simply forgotten the common man because his education would allow him to amass corporate wealth.
Bill Clinton and Hillary are quacking in their boots. Neither of them have seen nor been up against this type of raw political talent, with a true dedication and committment to public service with such a principled approach. Obama has convictions and the Hillary has none.
The take home message from this Rose interview is that Obama can and will lead America because he knows how to, whereas Hillary only knows how to fight and she is fighting hard.
That was the most important thing Bill said. He said that Hillary is more predicatable and Obama less so, he meant it as a slur against Obama but the true is that no one wants all that we can predict Hillary will bring. Bill's right, she is more predicatable so much so that we know we do not want more of her divisiveness, equivocating and triangulating that produces nothing and paralyzes the government. Obama is less predicatable in that he brings a new vision and massive political skills to actually change politics as we know it and lead America back to her global standing abroad and as well as at home.
That is a good thing Bill.
The problem with Hillary is we need leadership for change and she doesn't have it. Nor does she have a track record of substance/outcomes...cause Bill could not list a single one, nary one.
Thank you Bill for shinning the light on Obama and his greatness and telling us that Hillary has no substance.
GMA wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:So that I'm clear on who I favor, I'm a baby-boomer independent who wants change in how our corrupt government currently works. I see Obama as that agent. Lacking the beltway experience here is a good thing, contrary to what slick-Willy has to say about it. Like LJ wrote:
I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.
I also believe it's time for the (political) 'boomers'--yes, that includes you, Hillary--to make way for the next generation (Obama) to change the current dynamic. Again, that lack of experience of how things now work, goes well here. The present set of boomers (in both parties), shaped by the sixties and seventies, seem locked into certain mindsets with regard to our present problems (Iraq, Iran, the flattening of the global economy, the huge/growing deficit, politics of fear, etc.). The next gen has got to be given a chance to turnaround what the earlier (my) gen has gotten us into.
Bringing back the '90's, with Hillary as president, is not going to make that change. If H. does get the nomination, I'd hold my nose and would vote for her. But, that would be more to give the Democrats the chance at leadership since the Republicans have managed to so thoroughly screwed things up (so g*damn much) and trashed what this country has stood for.
As well, we've botched the response to the jihadist terror campaign. Yes, 9/11 happened. But, we reacted so ignorantly. Instead of keeping and making new allies in this fight, thus starving the fundamentalist movement of new recruits, we now make and gather more global enemies. And, we are running out of money to pay for those poor tactics. Obama was right from the start of this--contrary to Hillary. Where was her so-called experience? She's been on the wrong side of the votes? Explain that one, Bill.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 2:50 PM:Bill Clinton just made the best argument against his wife's candidacy possible
He's washed up
Time for BillHill to go
When a serial adulterer gives his wife a glowing job recommendation, you take it with a big grain of salt.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:52 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:24 PM:
In Iowa, Hillary was at 31% in November. Now she is at 24. Obama was at 22 in Nov. Now, he is at 34.
Using real math, that would mean that Obama is now leading, as opposed to in Nov. when he was trailing.
Looks like you must have gone to the GW Bush school of fuzzy math, Ethan. Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater.
You don't read very well. Maybe that is why you're reluctant to disclose your name. Slowly now, after me..."Hillary Clinton has roughly the same level of support in the latest polls, both nationally, and in Iowa, as SHE STARTED OUT WITH when the first polls were taken. THERE HAVE BEEN BLIPS ALONG THE WAY. The same is true, more or less FOR ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Even Al Bleeping Gore.
Don't believe it check Rasmussen Reports who are the most diligent and frequent pollsters at work on the campaign, and have records going back for over a year on their site.
John McCutchen wrote on December 15, 2007 2:56 PM:It's a sad sight. I worked hard for this guy, but now he's pathetic. The more time he spends like this, the more we are reminded not only of how far Bill Clinton has fallen over the past decade, more importantly, we democrats are called to realize that his wife's race has never been about her but always about Bill
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:57 PM:robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:52 PM:
You don't read very well. Maybe that is why you're reluctant to disclose your name. Slowly now, after me..."Hillary Clinton has roughly the same level of support in the latest polls, both nationally, and in Iowa, as SHE STARTED OUT WITH when the first polls were taken. THERE HAVE BEEN BLIPS ALONG THE WAY. The same is true, more or less FOR ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Even Al Bleeping Gore.
Wait, so over a year, she hasn't been able to convince a greater percentage of people to support her?
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:58 PM:Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:42 PM:
Robert Ethan:
Google. It's a wonderful thing:
http://www.kcci.com/politics/2440457/detail.html
I wasn't comparing national polls, because they aren't relevant at this point. The closer we get to February 5th, they'll be operative. But right now, I'm looking at the polls were the most people are engaged and seeing the candidates. Where that's happening, the trends don't favor your candidate. That may change, but at this point in the game, the trends don't favor her.
Too lazy to go check, but I'm willing to bet that Obama had close to 25% in Iowa in August of this year. There has never been much of a gap between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in Iowa. They have all been in the low 20s there for months as I recall. It isn't like H C ever had a huge lead in the state as she does nationally.
Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 15, 2007 2:59 PM:Seasons Greetings to all: "Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in." -The Atlantic
A large percentage of people don't vote, I was one. But that doesn't mean they're brain dead; I believe many find politics distasteful and choose not to participate. I think we're seeing people who had to sit by and watch, as did we all, a series of abuses from Travel-Gate to stealing the White House furniture - register their distain. People have long memories, and the Clintons have been on the attack for too long. They've tested a nation's patience. Now, the Clintons are asking for your vote. As the Clintons are eating bananas (bananas are binding, hence the expression) Iowans help restore my faith in humankind. I had no idea watching Hillary tank would be so enjoyable. But then, it's been long overdue: http://theseedsof9-11.com
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM:Some of these posts are getting far too long.
On the subject of HRC's national poll numbers remaining static, I could line my birdcage with a national poll and get better use out of it. There is no national primary. The dynamics of each statewide campaign will shift the discourse over and over during January.
Feb.5 may depend on a national media narrative, but that is in flux depending on how the candidates show in the early states.
What if, for instance, HRC's numbers in Michigan (where the ballot is just her and Dodd) tank in the meantime? If Dodd beats HRC 2-1 in Michigan, he has made a statement for himself and the anti-HRC group has plenty to run on for Super Tuesday.
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM:"Team Clinton is sinking like a blue dress in Whitewater."
"When a serial adulterer gives his wife a glowing job recommendation, you take it with a big grain of salt."
"There you go again bluedog. It's all just hate, hate, hate, hate. When in doubt throw out the hate card."
I am not allowed to point out the HATE?
I guess that means what your defintion of "roughly" is. But then it depends on what your definition of "is" is. If you start out with a 40, and are now in the low 20's, roughly speaking, you are behind, if someone else is in the 30's.
I don't know why you give your name, because then everyone would just know you are an idiot, and move on to the next post after reading it was your post.
RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 3:02 PM:Someone above said that, while Obama himself is a decent human being, his supporters who comment on his behalf are foul. Excuse me, but how many Obama volunteers have engaged in any conduct near as vile as the Hillary workers in Iowa spreading the Muslim rumors? How many Obama campaign chairs have done what Mr. Shaheen did?
I hesitate to blame the candidate for his or her supporters, but if I were a Hillary person I would not touch the question of the relative ethics and decency of her supporters, as compared with the ethics and decency of Obama supporters. It will just open (yet another) easily refutable argument for Hillary.
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 15, 2007 3:03 PM:These comment sections were better a year ago when people only talked when they had something to add. I look forward to TPM in mid-2009.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:04 PM:The best part is you are a HRC supporter who put "blue dress" and "White water" in your post.
Better brush up on your Talking points, ethan.
blackstar wrote on December 15, 2007 3:06 PM:Someone above said that, while Obama himself is a decent human being, his supporters who comment on his behalf are foul. Excuse me, but how many Obama volunteers have engaged in any conduct near as vile as the Hillary workers in Iowa spreading the Muslim rumors? How many Obama campaign chairs have done what Mr. Shaheen did?
---------
probably as many as you hear touted on the news in the same way as your 2 examples. that being next to none.
Paulie wrote on December 15, 2007 3:07 PM:NYFM wrote- "Well I happen to agree with Bill...Obama will be very easy pickings for the rightwing attack machine."
And Hillary won't be? Are you serious?
Trust me, no one can mobilize the right wing better than a clinton nomination.
Let's get real here, whoever is nominated by the dems will be barraged by the right so let's not pretend that Obama would fare worse than the others.
I think Bill Clinton makes an excellent case why Obama is not prepared to be president! Let me be clear! If he is our nominee I will support him for president because I am a Democrat. But as an American I don't think he is the best person to be the President of our country at this time. In another 4 or 8 years he may be better prepared. In fact (being in Illinois) I wish that he would run as Illinois Governor to gain more executive experience or at least finish one term in the Senate. Presidency is too important a job to have on-the-job training! Even though I tend to think Hillary is best prepared, I would take any of the other candidates over Obama. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson are all infinitely better prepared because I have greater trust in their judgment. I like Obama and I think he has great potential. But, he is too risky now and I say that as an American. When George Bush ran for president his people made the arguement that as long as he surrounds himself with the right advisors he will be ok. As we now clearly know, this is not true. A president needs wisdom and experience and good judgment to make the right decisions. That also involves having made a few bad decisions.
The other thing I want to note is that I have noticed that in this and other blogs that Obama's supporters uniformly seem to be childish and mean-spirited in their comments about Hillary. There is a lot of name-calling and venom directed at the Clintons and their supporters. The language they use and their venom seems to be on par with what one finds in rightwing websites. I wonder why this is? They completely seem to miss the point of the legitimate criticisms directed at Obama's lack of exprience. Think of asking a first-year teacher to be the school principal, asking a summer intern to run a company, a Medical intern to perform a major surgery, or a legal assistant to go before the Supreme court however talented each of these individuals are. If a saw a kid at the helm of your airplane the next time you fly, you would be legitimately concerned and you wouldn't let one of your kids drive even if he had an extremely high IQ. Thus, Obama's intellect and talent is no substitute for experience.
I will say again if Obama happens to be our nominee I will respect that decision and vote for him but I think we can do better!
I also did not think Bill was being mean to Obama. He had a lot of positive things to say and was trying hard to be fair. I think he is making legitimate points that we should think about carefully as Democrats and Americans! Candidates come and candidates go but the country is more important.
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 3:09 PM:Robert Ethan:
You HRC supporters can be a gas. First, you make the argument that Obama is this cycle's Dean because he's surging in December like Dean did. I point out that Dean surge began back in August of that year. And you respond by changing the subject. Hilarious! And to answer your question, I do know what Obama's numbers were in August 2007--it was lower than Edwards and Clinton. Check out pollster.com--they do a good job of collecting all of the polls (makes it easy for us lazy folks).
Can we agree that your Dean analogy falls flat? Or do you want to continue arguing against the facts?
DonnaG wrote on December 15, 2007 3:10 PM:The real fear of Obama or Edwards or Kucinich is in the chambers of the corporate/governmental revolving door/lobbying status quo, with whom the Clintons made their compact by compromising their original ideals and triangulating themselves to gain seats at the power/wealth table.
Anyone else wonder why the Clintons suddenly are worth up to fifty million dollars, and why they refuse to come clean about their income tax records, the donors to the Clinton Presidential Library, the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, and Hillary's Senate earmark requests, not to mention the Clinton White House records?
The absolutely appalling collusion among insiders from both parties is right in front of our eyes, if only we stop to examine just why our so-called Democratic party 'leaders' in Congress keep on rolling over to the agenda of the other party. The reality is that both parties' 'leaders' are serving the same agenda of entrenched powers behind the scenes.
It is a false choice to pick a machine Democrat over a machine Republican. Only a true grass roots effort will unseat these colluders and change the politics-as-usual dynamics that continue to destroy the future for all but the elites.
This is like a rigged game of keep-away..... the common folk up against the self-enriched colluders who get to play on stilts made of insider connections, designed and rigged to make sure the people themselves never again get to touch the ball.
And yes to someone who asked up-thread, Bill Clinton's aura is diminishing.
RS wrote on December 15, 2007 3:10 PM:Can one of the Clinton supporters please tell me what meaningful change Hillary has effected in her life?
I commend her efforts on health care, but it was an unmitigated disaster that was a signfiicant factor in the Republican Revolution of '94 and set back the cause of universal health care for 15 years.
In her 7 years in the Senate, she does not seem to have spearheaded any meaningful legislation either, though she has no doubt been a good servant for the people of New York by bringing home the pork.
The Clintons keep making these broad, abstract arguments about Hillary's record, but no one is calling them on the specifics. I think Obama's record as a legislator, both in Illinois and in his short term in the US Senate, compare favorably.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 3:11 PM:Well, it seems you can't "move onto the next post" very well, Anyol'mouse.
You're being totally selective about the polls you pick for one thing. Research 2000 had Obama up by 9 points in Iowa at the same time as the Rasmussen Three Day Tracking poll had Clinton up by 3 points. Who ya wanna beleive?
Secondly, you are picking H C highest poll numbers and comparing those to the (debunked) Research 2000 poll. Even if you accept the R2k numbers, her level of support is in the range it has been over THE PAST YEAR OR SO in Iowa.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:13 PM:There is a lot of name-calling and venom directed at the Clintons and their supporters. The language they use and their venom seems to be on par with what one finds in rightwing websites.
This is so true.....keep up the posting, you're right
ROBERT ETHAN, are you paying attention?
The people who read and contribute to this forum are not stupid so stop treating them that way.
Clintons behavior is highly indicative of the fact that her campaign is sliding downwards and no rovian spin can change that. She sees it and deduces that the best tactic is to attack. It will not work. Just like in sports, it's not who has been hot all season, it's who's hottest when it counts!!!
There are 8 major Democratic candidates who have yet to receive any votes. If you knuckleheads want to concentrate on these 2, that's your privilege. Just as long as you realize you're being manipulated by corporate media. The media polls lie. Since their staffing cuts, the media can't handle more than a couple of candidates, so they put up some polls that allow them to stop covering most of them.
Not surprisingly the ones they do cover are the most corporation-friendly, and in this case, I think, most vulnerable to Republicans.
What Big Willie is doing is hammering home the chosen meme for the Clinton campaign. HILLARY = SAFE.
That leaves her primary opponent (which looks like Obama at this point)stuck in the option of being the contrast to safe. Obama or Edwards would like that contrast to be "new" or "adventurous", or "exciting", or "charismatic".
But at the same time the Bills (Clinton and Sheehan) and Hill are planting the seeds of doubt about B O. When you get down to it the opposite of "safe" is not "exciting" or "adventurous" it is SORRY. OBAMA = SORRY.
Politics is really not all that complicated.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:20 PM:there is no inherent meanness in calling a person from someone's campaign who is being disingenuous just that. nor is there any childishness in pointing out that a candidate who told voters "i'm not going to attack fellow Democrats" has spent most of the time since doing just that.
if calling a spade a spade is a "Republican tactic", then call me Ron Paul.
mamiller wrote on December 15, 2007 3:20 PM:Does any else see this as possibly a little passive-aggressive behavior of a man interested in sabotaging his wife?
He has yet to do anything helpful to her, and this is beyond the pale, since the argument is baseless if you subtract out the (non-)experience as first lady.
Remember when Senator Dole started appearing in Viagra adds about the time Libby was ramping up for a Presidential run? I don't think he had her best interests in mind then either...
Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 3:22 PM:What Big Willie is doing is called Fear Mongering. It's page 3 in the Republican playbook.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 3:27 PM:Since it is now painfully obvious that we're being asked to give Bill a third term, shouldn't we get to see who's been giving money to his foundation and library?
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 3:27 PM:I for one have fond memories of Clinton years in terms of my own life. The economy was good, gas prices were low, and the country was at peace. Clintons fought against Republican obstructionism, rightwing attacks and mean-spiritedness and achieved a lot of good for common people. Republicans are not going to stop attacking if Obama became president. Politics is not going to stop! The right-wing media is not going to stop and start playing nice because Obama is president. People have to be realistisc. Stakes are high and the other side will bring everything they have to the fight! Obama may look good because he hasn't been through any of those fights! But, he will have to face those fights and I am worried that he is to green to face and win those fights! It is a genuine concern and in no way meant to belittle him or his supporters!
Av Oidab Leaphteral wrote on December 15, 2007 3:28 PM:When I was 8 or 9 I once brought up the subject "when I was young." Hillary should keep this in mind. Her experience amounts to screwing up the last real chance at health care reform, not a record to be proud of.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 3:34 PM:APS, if your argument is about competency at fighting you'll have to account for the fact that Clinton has kept on the incompetent joke and liability Mark Penn out of loyalty. You know, it was because of the influence of union-busting lobbyists like Penn that the Clintons had their falling out with Robert Reich, a decent man and good liberal if ever there was one.
RaymondA wrote on December 15, 2007 3:35 PM:Obama and Experience:
Abe Lincoln had a single 2-year term in the House. That was the sum total of his federal "experience."
Oh, and he served in the Illinois legislature for the same number of years as Obama.
Yes, I can hear the Bentsen imitators: "He's no Abe Lincoln." But for those of us under age 50, has anyone come close to having Lincoln's rhetorical and leadership skills, except Obama?
In any event, while Obama may not be Lincoln, to compare Obama to a "TV commentator," as Bill did, is just plain insulting. Obama paid his dues by working in the Illinois legislature and tackling the meaty controversial issues that arose in that body. Why is state legislative work qualititavely less important as "experience" then being in the US Congress anyways? That august body has recently dedicated its time to: 1) intervening in a state-court case involving a family's tragedy (Schiavo) and 2) voting on whether to censure MoveOn then Rush Limbaugh. Sorry, but I don't see a huge prestige gap.
Before his time in the legislature, Obama accomplished everything in his life by dint of his own efforts -- he's a classic self-made American. He had no inheritance, no trust fund, no nothing.
Hillary, with a huge leg up from her husband's machine started her own elective political career near the top with a US Senate run from a state where she had never lived. That's not classic dues paying. She's done well as a Senator, but has NOT taken on the hard issues, except when she waded into the Iraq war authorization vote and took the wrong side.
The real truth here is that Bill Clinton is on fire with envy of Obama. Obama has all the raw political talent and brain power Bill has, but Obama, unlike Bill, overcame his personal demons early in his life, grew comfortable with who he was, and did not "act out" with reckless self-destructive behavior, as Bill did throughout the 1980's and then into his tenure as President. Bill looks at Obama and thinks, "If I could have controlled my impulses, my insecurities, and my appetites, I could have been considered a great leader rather than a pretty good President marred by a second-rate scandal." That's why he can't control himself in his effort to stop Obama.
I am old enought to remember many primary fights! Objectively, this has been a pretty clean and civil primary campaign so far. If Obama supporters think what Bill Clinton said is uncivil or mean then may be they are not ready for the general election. Compared to what Clinton, Gore, and Kerry had to face this is nothing! These are legitimate points of contention. In contrast, Obama supporters here are engaging in personal attacks against Clintons on par with the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities of the worls! This is what so discouraging and sad. That progressive blogs sound like rightwing talk radio!
Desider wrote on December 15, 2007 3:45 PM:Robert Ethan adds some nice life to the comments. Yes, the press has a lot at stake in making this an interesting horse race. Yes, if you look at the national polling graph at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/DPM2008_12_12.png
it looks like Obama really really needs to hope that if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire it will have some catastrophic effect on all those blue states.
That said, I think Bill's interview and just his style is pretty dead and boring by now. I'm glad he's doing good at charity work, but I don't much see him at the UN anymore. Okay, one interview, maybe he's not that bad off. Regarding shaking and turning red, it's possible he's not that young anymore and his health is deteriorating. Anyway, he thinks his wife is more qualified, not exactly news.
Geek, Esq. wrote on December 15, 2007 3:45 PM:Kobe Bryant's wife got a gigantic diamond ring. Hillary gets Bill doing interviews on Charlie Rose.
Cinderella Ferret wrote on December 15, 2007 3:48 PM:Its about judgment. Judgment. Judgment. After 15 years of Clinton/Bush "judgment", or the lack thereof, (although admittedly judgment on entirely different matters) I do not believe HRC's experience out weighs her poor judgment on the Patriot Act and Iraq. Period. This country requires a President whose sound judgment we can trust to lead us back to a sane foreign and domestic policy. HRC is not that person.
Give me Barack Obama's good judgment over HRC's "experience' any day.
Matt Ahrens wrote on December 15, 2007 3:48 PM:Three points about Bill Clinton campaigning for Hillary and being her hit-man:
First, as much as many people like Bill Clinton, the more he campaigns for Hillary the more people realize they don't want to go back to the 1990s. Even people who loved the Clintons then don't want to return to the constant bitterness between them and their haters. The divisiveness in America needs to end.
Second, Bill Clinton attacking Obama makes Hillary look weak. It is as if he has to do the fighting for her. What happens if the U.S. gets attacked? Does Bill take control? Think about it, the more he talks about policy and politics and power, the weaker she looks by comparison.
Third, Bill's campaigning for Hillary is hurting his own presidential legacy. Like I wrote above, it is becoming more of a reminder about what they hated about the Clinton years than what they loved about them. AND, it is making everyone realize that there was no lasting impact to the way he governed. His leadership is at least partially responsible for the backlash of the Bush years. Without Monica, Gore probably wins the 2000 election (and probably without Lieberman as his running mate.) With her (and other things) he opened the door for a right wing victory that brought war, diplomatic crisis, economic crisis, debt, Katrina, waterboarding, wiretapping, etc. That is all now a part of Clinton's legacy because he wasn't politically strong enough to get his successor elected (like Reagan did with the first President Bush.) I wonder if he would have done more for Gore or Kerry if Hillary wasn't looking to run this year.
Bottom line, Bill helped Hillary get positioned and financed but he hurts her in these final couple of weeks before the actual voting starts. So, please keep it up Bill. I look forward to you advising Barack too!
If experience was such a big help to Bill Clinton in 1992, how did he manage to lose Congress to the republicans within two years?
BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:52 PM:"personal attacks against Clintons on par with the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities"
So true. They can't debate health care because Obama's plan is weak, they can't discuss foreign policy because he has none....so, they attack Hillary. They call her names, they bring up right wing talking points, they embarrass themselves with their hatred. Once the election is over, we need to purge the party of the Nader/Kucinich/Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens wing of the party. The ultra-left has done a good job of sinking many Democratic presidential candidates because they are not ideologically pure, but not this time. This time their candidate is a blank slate, a smart lawyer who can't be held accountable for his votes, because, well, he wasn't in office to vote. A smart guy who no one really knows anything about, an unknown who has never faced the Republican attack machine. Someone who offers Hope, but not policies, someone who caters to the ultra-left with no chance of winning the general. This time, though, Hillary is going to trounce Obama on February 5 and take her case to the people, she will win Ohio, Florida, and Arkansas and take the presidency. She will end the war in Iraq, she will protect American workers from unfair trade and the insourcing/outsourcing of jobs, and she will pass real, universal health care.
Elijah Trotsky wrote on December 15, 2007 3:54 PM:How naive Senator Obama is to think that anyone will "change the tone" in Washington.......no one is going to give uo their interests without a fight...Senator Obama better be willing to fight the fights of the 90's the fights of FDR, JFK........if he thinks changing the tone is going to affect the pharmeceutical companies, oil, automotivve then he's delusional at best. Frederick Douglas said something to the effect that "power concedes nothing"....
Desider wrote on December 15, 2007 3:54 PM:Regarding Ethan's comments on Iowa, if you look at the polls at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008
you might see a Hillary dip in Iowa of about 2% over 4 months of polling from the various polls, not quite the tanking that people seem to be describing. We'll see the effects of the increased efforts of her campaign over the next few weeks, but as has been stated before, this wasn't quite the state they'd been most focused on. That doesn't take anything away from Obama's improved position, but it's still about the nationals, which means even if he wins, he has to turn it into other states, easier said than done.
Bill Clinton doesn't really deserve the hatred I feel for him right now; but for him to talk about Hillary and Obama like he's some sort of objective observer of the situation is the height of chutzpah, and galling.
If he wants to be photographed hugging her in public, that's great; but if he's going to come out like some Big Blue Attack Dog and try to sell us his wife and tell us why Obama is so naive... it's a gargantuan sell-out, the destruction of his political legacy and a stain on his soul. He ought to be ashamed. He ought to stay out of this.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 3:59 PM:Sorry, but the reaction by alot of folks here and on other sites who support Obama presents just more evidence of how "not ready for prime time" Obama is. What Clinton has to say is fair and tough, and is child's play compared to what Obama will get if he's the nominee. However, all of the Obama supporters, and his campaign staffers, are outraged and taken aback by what big meanies Bill and HRC are being to their favorite college professor. Legit observation about Obama's relative lack of experience is seen as "hardball" and "nasty". Yikes. I have visions of Obama curled up in a fetal position in tears once the real fight with the Repubs starts
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:00 PM:Blue Dog. Obama is happy to debate Hillary on health care, though she didn't exactly raise the level of discourse:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/democrats-should-stop-battling-over.html
Hillary is DOA in Iowa, and once her aura of inevitability is busted, it will be the beginning of the end for her campaign. All of Big bad Billy's horse's and all of his men, will not be able to put Queen Hillary's campaign back together again.
If she does not take Iowa, she is toast.
Michael A wrote on December 15, 2007 4:01 PM:Bluepuppy, I say we purge the party of the bush-lite republicans like you and the clintons. Your post is so full of bs. The 90's legacy of the clintons is nowhere near as rosy as you people claim. One of the reasons why is they are more republican then democrat. Nafta, don't ask don't tell, government privatization to line the pockets of political allies, get rid of welfare to screw the poor, refuse to negotiate with a dem congress on healthcare reform????? and on and on. I don't understand why people call them dems or why they have all this dem support, they should be running in the republican primary.
I am so sick of the ultra-left in the democratic party republican talking point spewed by clinton II lovers. I guess 70 percent of the country is ultra left, because 70 percent of the country want us out of iraq yesterday. She wants to keep us there forever. I guess she plans on getting campaign contributions from the companies raping iraq now, just like she's getting caaaaasssh from insurance and big pharma to keep lining their pockets with her healthcare "plan." Might as well call it what it is, corporate welfare. Pathetic.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:04 PM:Bill Clinton is a former Democratic president of the United States. If he wants to campaign for his wife and say things to support her that he knows are not true, it's his choice. He is trading the potential to become a senior statesman for the self-serving post of political hack. His right, his choice.
But when he attacks other candidates in an effort to get his unqualified wife elected president of the United States, he has gone too far. Bill could easily campaign talking only about Hillary's virtues, if he wanted too. The fact is of course that her virtues are too few and they will never get her elected. So, Bill becomes part of the mean attack machine. He is now persuing his on self interest and nepotistic agenda at the expense of the Democratic party and the nation.
Bill may owe Hillary a lot, the nation owes her nothing. She is not qaulifed to lead the nation and the world, simply because she's "married" to Bill, and has been a good political wife, and a do-nothing Senator who's only notable accomplishment was voting for the War in Iraq and giving Bush cover for an attack on Iran.
If Bill loves his country, he should put his ego and greed in check, and shut up.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:06 PM:Chris. Please take a deep breath and you'll realize how ridiculous you sound. Hillary and her surrogates have been saying ad nauseum that Obama "has no experience". Obama and his supporters have answered that argument pointing out that Obama does have experience and that unlike Hillary his experience leads to good judgment and concrete legislative achievements like more open and accountable government spending. Nothing in Bill Clinton's rant spoke to that argument. The people of Iowa and NH have had a good long look at Obama's superior track record and they aren't fooled. If the Clintons and Mark Penn cannot effectively respond to a supposed "amateur" then they are undermining their own argument that they alone can take on the veeeery scerrrrry winguts. This fear-based campaign tactic will not work.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 4:08 PM:I find it amusing that Obama supporters are up in arms because Bill supports Hillary! What do you expect, that he will remain neutral or endorse Obama even? Well! don't you expect Michelle Obama to support her husband vocally and visibly? Isn't that what she has been doing? Giving speeches and campaigning for her husband and against his opponents? Isn't that what Elizabeth Edwards has been doing? Don't they criticize their spouses' opponents by name? This is hardly surprising! Bill Clinton didn't personally attack Obama. He just said he doesn't think he has the exprience to be president and that in his view his wife is the best candidate. When Bush Jr. ran, was it any surprise that his father campaigned fro him or strongly supported him? This is normal politics. Why is any of this surprising?
Why do you have to "hate" Bill Clinton for this?
Folks, we Obama supporters are not faulting Bill for bringing up the experience issue. We are faulting for his doing it in that uniquely Clintonian way of lying or exaggerating. He says Obama began running one year after being elected. Wrong. 2 years. But more importantly, Bill talks as if Obama never had a public life before his Senate run -- as if he had been a TV news commentator like Keith Olbermann or something. That falsely reads out of his biography eight years taking the lead in the Illinois Senate on issues much tougher and meatier than those Hillary chose to tackle in the US Senate -- with one exception. Hillary took a clear stand on the Iraq war, calling it "the most difficult decision" in her career. She happened to be wrong. Worse, she later pretended the vote was just a vote for diplomacy. But if that's what it was, it was not the "most difficult decision" in her career, it was the easiest.
steve wrote on December 15, 2007 4:12 PM:#1. Since when is a profound acquaintance with Beltway life a guaranteee of doing the right thing?
#2. The two dem frontrunners at each other's throats, either of whom would be a first in the White House, either one a hard sell in itself. The Repubs have things just where thet want 'em.
#3. Nixon used break-ins and wiretaps to prepare the electoral landscape for his victory. So does the present ruling GOP. We're all running behind their sh-t wagon.
It's all beyond my puny influence.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:13 PM:Michael A...You are absolutely correct.
These sell out, Red dog Republicans who think they are democrats are the reason we might lose the general election. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican and a Nixon supporter. Then she met Bill, and saw a way to political power. Ouila, she became a Democrat.
If we could just find a way to purge these Bush enablers and Constitution haters out of our party, we could empower the majority of Americans who think of the Democratic Party as just "Republican light".
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 4:15 PM:
Thanks for the kind words Desider. I went to the link you provided and backtracked a bit.
Exactly one year ago today, December 16, 2006, an Iowa poll showed Hillary Clinton with 16% support and Barack Obama with 13%. If you accept the latest Rasmussen Tracking poll rather than the Research 2000 poll taken recently in Iowa, the margin between the two contestants is EXACTLY THE SAME 1 YEAR LATER. Clinton +3.
If you're bound to still with the Research 2000 poll, several other polls taken in Iowa ALMOST a year ago, showed Obama with leads similar to the 9 points that R2k gives him.
Nationally the picture is very similar. According to the polld, the race thus far has been anything but volatile. Both Clinton and Obama are within a couple of % points, support wise, of where they were A FULL CALENDAR YEAR ago.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:15 PM:APS. Stop treating people like they are invisible. Referring generally to "Obama supporters" without saying which person or comment in the thread you are responding to amounts to simply spewing untargeted negativity into the conversation.
Miggsathon wrote on December 15, 2007 4:20 PM:This constitutes taking the gloves off? If so, our political climate must be pretty civil. He complimented Obama as often as he criticized him, and made the utterly reasonable claim that who one picks for president will depend on the questions one asks. He put forward what he thought the right questions were. We can agree or disagree. But this transcript isn't remotely "brutal."
Jim J wrote on December 15, 2007 4:22 PM:What a bunch of thin-skinned maroons. Clinton was totally even-handed in this interview, praising Obama fulsomely throughout. What did you expect him to do, endorse Obama over his own wife?
If Obama does end up getting the nomination, I sure hope he isn't as much of a candy ass as his supporters seem to be.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 4:23 PM:1 year or two years, who cares? The point is that Obama started running for president pretty much as soon as he won the senate seat here in Illinois (I voted for him). Everyone here knew this. This was widely discussed in the media the possibility that he might run.
I can framkly tell you that I did not hear about Obama until he started running for the Senate seat. There were not a lot of major accomplishments here in the Illinois senate that our local newspaper thought worthy to print. So, let us not exaggerate this "he had accomplished great things in the Illinois senate" point. Of course, being in the Illinois senate is not the same as being in the U.S. senate. What "tougher and meatier" issues the Illinois Senate dealt with in the last 10 years? Can anyone tell me? What stands did Obama take in those "tougher and meatier" debates? We in Illinois don't remember any such thing. I lived in Hyde Park for a year in early 2000 and I cannot tell you either. He was not that widely known. Again, I happen to like Obama a lot. I voted for him when he ran for the Senate. But, all this talk about his great experience, amazing accomplishments, etc. is a bit much. He is smart, talented, and has some modest accomplishments. At this point that is all there is. I for one do not consider him a messiah who is going to dramatically change how politics is done in our country. I want to choose candidates based on a realistic appraisal of their record and accomplishments! Not based on a fairy tale! People are doing him a great disservice by puffing him up in this manner.
Lonny wrote on December 15, 2007 4:23 PM:I think the real question is: What's important to Bill Clinton? If Hillary gets the nomination and is elected, then that act alone would be enough to overshadow Bill. Or does he think that electing her would enhance his legacy? If Bill doesn't want Hillary to get it, then he'll just work hard enough to make it seem like he's supporting her but won't actually sabotage her chances.
I've notice Al Gore hasn't weighed in yet. I'm pretty sure he's not running. He may wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire to give his endorsement. The safe endorsement would be Edwards, the predictable endorsement would be Hillary. It wouldn't really help either one of them. Obama would get the biggest boost from an Al Gore endorsement.
I will not be voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I will be voting against any Republican if any other Democratic nominee gets it except Obama. I would genuinely vote for Obama.
DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 4:26 PM:Robert Ethan - your overexpanding the context of the original statement "Hillary is tanking in the polls." The obvious meaning is that she was once inevitable and now she's at least tied, more likely behind. When someone says a candidate is "tanking" that's a reference to current trends, not a relation to where they stood over a year ago, and if you look at the tracking graphs near the top of this page from Pollster you'll see that while Edwards has gone up a little in the last couple months, and Obama has gone up a lot, Hillary has indeed headed south.
Again, we're looking at current trends, not a year-long arch. There's simply no denying that for about a month and a half, Hillary has gone down. Might that change? Sure. But as of now, she's tanking.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 4:29 PM:Sorry Jeremy, didn't mean to ruffle the feathers Dear, but your reaction is just further to my main point. I don't have an axe to grind with Obama, but compared to other candidates he is relatively inexperienced, and was lucky enough not to be in office for the original Iraq vote, and has been conspicously MIA for subsequent votes that he has taken HRC to task for actually making. Hillary has her faults, but the point that Bill was making is that Obama just isn't ready yet, and the whining that I hear from his campaign and supporters on the web every time that someone says something mean about him is telling.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:31 PM:Listen Ethan you really need to inhale less.
Clinton was at 16% BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION!!! Obama was at 13%.
Today, IOWA QUAD CITY TIMES....IN...IOWA!!!
"A new Quad-City Times/Lee Enterprises poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers shows U.S. Sen. Barack Obama extending his lead in Iowa to nine points with less than three weeks to go before the state’s leadoff presidential caucuses.
The poll of 500 likely Democratic caucus voters conducted by Research 2000 had Obama of Illinois leading with support from 33 percent of those surveyed.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who have both held the lead in Iowa polls at various times this year, are tied for second place with 24 percent.
HELLOOOO....ETHAN...FUZZY MATH ETHAN...YOUR CANDIDATE...IS TOAST!!!!
CalD wrote on December 15, 2007 4:32 PM:APS,
I find that amusing too. I also don't see what's so "brutal" about that interview clip posted above -- other than Rose's incessant attempts to paraphrase President Clinton's observations and opinions in more brutal terms. It's more like Rose was trying to get him to take the gloves off and Clinton wouldn't bite. I actually thought Clinton showed a lot of restraint in not going off on Rose after the third or fourth time he tried it. He's been known to take an interviewer to the wood shed for those kinds of antics.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:33 PM:BeAngryAtTheSun said "Some of these posts are getting far too long."
Simple solution. Duh? Don't read the long ones. Rocket science?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html
The great man has taken a $10,000,000 gift from the Saudi Royal Family towards building his library. So much for expecting much action on alternative energy development from a Clinton II administration. Anyone asked Al Gore for his opinion on this?
JoeCHI wrote on December 15, 2007 4:34 PM:Good for Bill. It needed to be said.
Bill has every right to stand up for his wife, as well as his record. Further, Hillary is entitled to her husband's support, much like Obama and Edwards are entitled to their spouses' support.
Obama and Edwards, including their spouses, have been blasting the Clinton's for months. The Clinton's should be afforded the same opportunity.
Either all of it's OK, or none of it's OK.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 4:36 PM:And HRC supporters, I look forward to having you people advise us Obama supporters in the future.
Everyone in politics has skeletons in their closet? have you heard of Rezko?
"Federal prosecutors allege that an Obama supporter named Antoin "Tony" Rezko has participated in several illegal activities, including a scheme with Chaib to get a loan through false pretenses and use the money to buy a pizza business.
Chaib was executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority at the time.
Rezko, in addition to being a political supporter, bought a piece of property next to Obama's Chicago home and then sold Obama a section, giving the senator a larger yard.
Obama has described the transaction as a "boneheaded" mistake because of the way it looked. But he says it was legal and that he paid a more-than-fair price for the land."
Does this mean that Obama is "corrupt?" I don't think anymore than stories about Clintons by the mainstream media imply they are corrupt? So, let us get off this Clintons are corrupt but Obama is a saint theme. That is simply using rightwing talking points.
The only reason George W Bush became President was because he was the son of a President.
And the only reason Hillary has any chance of becoming President is because she is the wife of a President.
The Bush & Clinton dynasties have taken nepotism way, way, way too far.
bridoc wrote on December 15, 2007 4:40 PM:Can someone please tell Bill that he can't have a third term? Give me a break, I'm tired of this, coattails much?
Oh, and apparently Obama's pre-Senate record means nothing. I guess his legislative experience in Illinois doesn't matter, or teaching constitutional law for over ten years? How about his grassroots community work in Chicago or his legal experience? Give me a break, Hillary can't match that, she would be nowhere without riding Bill's coattails and she has LESS legislative experience than Obama, not more. If they want to argue their relative strengths and weaknesses they ought to at least be honest about what the record shows.
Urg, I can't wait until this primary crap is over.
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 4:44 PM:Donna, with all due respect to Gore, who cares what he has to say at this point? I'm glad for his Nobel, but roll back six years and the guy ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern history. Smart guy, but an aweful candidate. The fact that Bush even got close enough to have it come down to Florida is shameful.
His cause is a righteous one, but the latter day canonization of the guy by the American Left is getting nauseating. 10% of you voted for Nader in 2000 because you just couldn't see the difference between Gore and Bush at the time, remember?. If you watch the clip of what Clinton is saying, he's actually quite reserved in what he has to say about Obama. It's a reasonable question to be asking, and the fact that the Obama crowd is so offended by Clinton's "Attack!!!" on Obama is speaking volumes.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 4:46 PM:APS spins "Why do you have to "hate" Bill Clinton for this?"
Four points in response:
1. Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are not former U.S. presidents picking sides in a Democratic presidential primary.
2. Edwards and Obama are qualified to be president on their own merits, Hillary's only qualification is being Bill's wife = nepotism.
3. Supporting Hillary as her spouse (even if estranged) does not require attacking other Democratic candidates. Bill attacks because he is very hard pressed to defend Hillary's shallow record, experience and judgment as a leader.
4. Why do supports of the Clintons keep portraying them as "victims." Poor poor Hillary and Bill, anyone who disagrees is the enemy and hates them. Very appealing quality for leadership: always being victimized.
Jeremy wrote on December 15, 2007 4:47 PM:Chris. With all due respect, I can be tolerant of ignorance, but willful ignorance is quite another thing. Glacly, your repetition of an uninformed talking point gets very little traction with voters that have had the time to examine the candidates' track records. Early on, before voters learned more about what Obama has achieved (which is significantly more and more significant than Hillary's accomplishments as a Senator) voters were reasonably skeptical. Note however, that the more voters learn the more they like Obama. The reason is his track record of good judgment and achievement. So your political potshots about missed votes while campaigning (the type of Rovian shit we last saw aimed at Kerry and Edwards) just doesn't matter. The fact is that on issues from death penalty reform, to ethics, to CAFE standards, to health care, to criminal justice, to actually making a difference for veterans (here Obama's record is particularly strong and grossly ignored), and on and on Obama has delivered in ways that Hillary has not. This isn't about whose turn it is or who is entitled. It's about who has earned it. Obama has a track record of fighting for and delivering change and no amount of willful ignorance on behalf of your girl will make it go away.
pacc wrote on December 15, 2007 4:52 PM:Excellent to hear Bill Clinton calling a spade a spade.
O-Bomb-A is truly a crap shoot; he cynically plays black America against other Democratic constituencies; he's got a dirty history of doing political favors for money; his wife is a big mouth, ugly trash talking race baiter, and he would be a disaster on the national stage.
It needs to be said again and again and again.
We don't need O-Bomb-A's sort on the national ticket.
Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 15, 2007 4:52 PM:APS said "Everyone in politics has skeletons in their closet? have you heard of Rezko?"
Ever heard of mud wrestling? We know Hillary is and she loves it. Too bad the other candidates and the nation aren't going to play in the muck with Hillary and her supporters. I was shocked, shocked, shocked at Obama's kindergaren essays. Still laughing and hfully innoculated from Hillary's wild attempts at mud slinging.
I talk to a lot of people who are not strongly Republican or Democrat, and most of them agree with Bill that Obama is just too inexperienced. It's not that they all support Hillary, but they are deeply frightened by all the serious problems we face and don't think Obama is ready.
In addition, Obama is naive if he thinks he won't have to revisit the fights of the 90's. Gore and Kerry both did. What makes him think the right wing attack machine won't go after him? Remember, they don't need any real scandal to savage an opponent. They are perfectly willing pay people to make stuff up like they did to Kerry about his war record (or McCain in 2000 for that matter). The Clinton's are ready for this. Obama clearly is not.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 4:59 PM:DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 4:26 PM:
Robert Ethan - your overexpanding the context of the original statement "Hillary is tanking in the polls." The obvious meaning is that she was once inevitable and now she's at least tied, more likely behind. When someone says a candidate is "tanking" that's a reference to current trends, not a relation to where they stood over a year ago, and if you look at the tracking graphs near the top of this page from Pollster you'll see that while Edwards has gone up a little in the last couple months, and Obama has gone up a lot, Hillary has indeed headed south.
Again, we're looking at current trends, not a year-long arch. There's simply no denying that for about a month and a half, Hillary has gone down. Might that change? Sure. But as of now, she's tanking.
Once again, I think it depends which current poll you look at as much as anything. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll had Hillary at 29% in their last release, December 12, Obama at 26%. These guys track continuously, and use a much larger data base than the local newspaper polls everyone is trumpeting.
In their summary, it said that "H C leads with 29%, the same support as she had 2 weeks previously, and 2 POINTS HIGHER than polls taken a month ago.".
I don't put great faith in polls, it seems everyone chooses the poll that best suits their argument. Usually taken off their candidates site. Exit polls taken after the 2004 caucuses in Iowa showed that nearly 50% of the voters made up thier minds "within the last 3 days"! That fact makes ANY poll taken 3 weeks before the event a bit redundant.
A little dose of reality.......
I keep hearing from supporters of HRC that all they keep hearing is "Hate, Hate, Hate" in regards to Hillary, and that detractors to her nomination are somehow not credilble because their criticism of her is not based in, what they consider, substantive policy differences. Well, here is a little dose of reality for all of the Shillarys.....It doesn't matter.
If voters feel that the only reason not to vote for her is because they "hate" her, or if they are somehow "blinded" from her legislative brilliance because of that hate...guess what? The "unsubstantiated dislike" for her is the only thing that counts, because in the end, voters are STILL not voting for your DLC Candidate.
One element, (not the only one) of winning an election is that it IS a "popularity contest".
Those of us,(and we are legion) that will NEVER vote for Hillary need no other reason than that. Our reasons for dislike are varied and numerous. Some are qualified by real policy differences, and some are not.
Bottom line:
Hillary Clinton is poison for the Democratic Party, and the "divided house" aspect of the country as a whole.
The DLC destroyed the Democratic Party in the 90's, and is rearing it's ugly head once again now that a real progressive awakening is taking place in the USA.
The Clintons are out for themselves and their corrupt corporate friends only.
Not you, and not me.
They both say 'all options are on the table' re. Iran. Neither wants single-payer health care. Neither will cut the 'defense' budget, neither has ever mentioned the poor, or has done much to get us out of Iran. What are you wasting your time on these two for? No one's voted for either of them yet.
Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 5:04 PM:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/15/obama_clinton_and_the_negative.html
Chris wrote on December 15, 2007 5:05 PM:Concerned, let's be real. Come Feb 5th, Obama's an afterthought, and good riddance. Even if Obama wins in Iowa and NH, come super Tuesday, he's done. The idea that the lonely nation will turn its eyes to Iowa and convert is preposterous. Also, this notion of being above it all and "not playing in the muck" is just too much. Just because Obama and Oprah have decided to push the "Hope" and "New Direction" meme to its limits, you can't just put your nose up in the air and refuse to engage with the mean boys and girls because you've decided that those are the new rules. Just wait until the Repubs sink their teeth into this guy. I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.
Mike timmons wrote on December 15, 2007 5:08 PM:So Ethan, now that Hillary is tied for 3rd in Iowa, you "don't put great faith in polls".
I knew I could school you. That one of the reasons I do not support Hillary. Just like you, there is no "there" there.
audit the polls wrote on December 15, 2007 5:12 PM:Maybe we SHOULD nominate a conservative like Obama or Clinton. We need a third party in this country, anyway.
vena wrote on December 15, 2007 5:18 PM:This is lame of Bill and very disappointing. It's obvious that he is saying everything she wishes she could say. He's not even running, but it sure sounds like he is. These attacks aren't even on Obama's policy, they're more or less about him. Likening Obama to "a gifted television commentator" sounds really childish, but people will listen to this stuff.
APS wrote on December 15, 2007 5:19 PM:I have to go to take one of my kids to a school play! May the best candidate win! I think it is Hillary! However, any of the Democrats are better than the Republican field! What unites is a lot more than what separates us! Who said that?
At the end of the day, they are all politicians! They are not saints and they are not messiahs. The only ones who care ultimately about us are our family, friends and neighbors! I hope for less anger and more listening to each other! Peace and prosperity to all of you and wish you all happy holidays!
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 5:24 PM:I never had "great faith in polls" you mealy mouthed dweeb, timmons. That is the whole point I've been trying to make.
It is you guys who are climaxing about Obama's "surge" and Hillary's "tanking" based on a couple low budget outlier polls in one forgotten corner of the nation.
Look at the big picture, look at the long term polling, look at the historical precedents. If you bet your house on the polls from this time 4 years ago, you'd be living in a cardboard shelter make up of used Howard Dean signs.
Apologies if that hit too close to "home". :)
pacc wrote on December 15, 2007 5:29 PM:A preview of what will happen to O-Bomb-A if he's on the natonal ticket:
“… I thought Hillary Clinton had it locked solid, but it looks like it’s opening up a bit. I must admit I find it a little surprising that a guy who has virtually no experience of an executive nature, leadership nature, never run anything, no experience of any significance in the private economy. As a state legislator he was not doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the United States Senate he hasn’t been the champion of a major piece of legislation, and some how because he can talk well why we think he can be president. I have to shake my head, because I think it takes more to be president than just being able to talk well. I think you have to show that you have a record of demonstrated success in leadership in a number of ways. And uh, I gotta tell, if we’re going to select our nominee on the Democratic side based on the number of celebrities they know, like Oprah, it’s a pretty frightening course.” - Mitt Romney
O-Bomb-A is a loser big time for the Democrats. And Democratic voters - nationwide - understand that. Just look at all the polls.
DonnaG wrote on December 15, 2007 5:30 PM:APS, at 4:23pm,
You said, "I want to choose candidates based on a realistic appraisal of their record and accomplishments! Not based on a fairy tale!"
Oh, good. I agree. Now will you kindly give your realistic appraisal of Hillary's record and accomplishments.......and do so without the usual generalizing vague statements [championed, worked for, etc] that we've gotten pretty tired of, which vagueness actually only work for folks who believe in fairy tales? Thanks.
The reason I am asking is that I am have been trying for months to find some meat to fill the sandwich of generality wonderment bread being offered about Hillary's 'experience and accomplishments'. Hint: you might start by listing her successfully sponsored-into-law bills in her only elected office of U.S. Senator. Good luck.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 15, 2007 5:33 PM:I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.
Nice work there.
On point: What of the Obama campaign's ability to turn HRC & co's missteps in