Bill Says That President Doesn't "Run The Bureaucracy"

Comments (83)

Gnopple wrote on January 25, 2008 2:48 PM:

ha.

that's great. I really think Bill would be a huge Obama guy if his wife wasn't in the race.

miggs wrote on January 25, 2008 2:55 PM:

Hillary, in the Las Vegas debate, countering Barack's suggestion that it's mostly about vision and bringing people together, not operations:

"You’ve got to set the tone, you’ve got to set the vision, you’ve got to set the goals, you’ve got to bring the country together. And then you do have to manage and operate and hold that bureaucracy accountable to get the results you’re trying to achieve."

CalD wrote on January 25, 2008 2:55 PM:

Our judges say that's going to cost him.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:55 PM:

Some people you don't need to parody. You just quote them.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:56 PM:

Bill Clinton: too naive to be president.

loki wrote on January 25, 2008 2:56 PM:

Greg,

I could be wrong but it sounds like Bill is in fact referencing Obama's quote. Saying in effect that OK yes you don't run the bureaucracy but here is what you do...etc. Doesn't sound to me like he saying the exact same thing.

Mark from NY wrote on January 25, 2008 2:58 PM:

The trouble is - do enough people know the difference between a CEO and a COO is?

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:58 PM:

Obama is trying to frame Bill emphasizing Hillary's point as being the same as his? That's a stretch. Everybody stop it!

Whatever wrote on January 25, 2008 2:58 PM:

Looks like the TruthSquad(tm) is still stalking Bill.

It's not a good idea for Obama constantly to remind people what a putz he was in that debate. Absorb the blow and move on.

Bringing this up now just reminds everyone that it is not a weakness that can be viewed as a strength to lose track of important papers.

loki wrote on January 25, 2008 2:58 PM:

Yes, the more I read it...the more it is clear Clinton is answering Obama's comments. Not aping them.

Scientific wrote on January 25, 2008 3:00 PM:

Wow. Sounds like Obama knows more about what it takes to be president than Hillary does - or she simply has a radically different idea of what the presidency is.

hadenough wrote on January 25, 2008 3:03 PM:

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:04 PM:

"Mark from NY wrote on January 25, 2008 2:58 PM:
The trouble is - do enough people know the difference between a CEO and a COO is?"

Sure doesn't sound like it the way people are arguing. Obama said he's not an OPERATING officer.

CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 3:07 PM:

If you "don't run the bureaucracy", as Bill says, then how can you be "hands on", as Hillary claims you must be?

And my guess that most people don't know the difference between a COO and a CEO and most people couldn't give a rat's ass about the difference.

But maybe I'm just projecting...

pkoso wrote on January 25, 2008 3:08 PM:

again and again and again...who's running for office? the ballot says hillary, though it seems bill doesn't know it. would hillary supporters like to tell me why i should vote for her instead of simply writing in "bill"?

bill clinton for prez in '08. let the write-in begin!

mcc wrote on January 25, 2008 3:10 PM:

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

"Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference".

... that's an "attack"?

Huh.

adyacent wrote on January 25, 2008 3:11 PM:

Giong beyond the she said, he said, he said, ... I think I am with Obama (and Bill) in this one. The president is the one who sets the goals. The job of running the bureaucracy tight, yes partly is the President but it is more a job of the Chief of Staff, seems to me. By the way, that could work well. Obama president, Hillary chief of staff. I think it plays to all of their strengths.

frankly0 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:12 PM:

My sense is that loki's interpretation is likely right -- Bill is too clearly aping Obama's original comment not to be working off of it to create a very different idea of what it is that Presidents really do.

The quote mentions both the "Chief Executive Officer" notion, which is essentially the same as Obama's "operating officer", and the explicit phrase, "run a bureaucracy". That can't be a coincidence; he's essentially correcting Obama's original argument.

And note what Bill goes on to say, "you are responsible for seeing that your ideas turn into positive changes in other people’s lives." Clearly, this injects the notion that one is as President responsible for overseeing and managing the government so that it achieves the desired effects.

Contrast this with Obama's idea, that "My job is to set a vision of 'here's where the bureaucracy needs to go.'" All that that idea suggests is that he sets out a vision, a goal. It says nothing about following up, and having the responsibility of making sure that right sort of changes are effected in people's lives.

Those are very dramatically different views about what the President is supposed to do, and quite consistent with Hillary's original criticism of Obama.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:12 PM:

I can almost guarantee that there are alot of wonderfully juicy quotes on tape by mr. bill about the b-movie actor in the 90's. I only hope that the obama oppo research team is combing for them. Same thing about the republican "ideas" that mr. bill took as his own and the purpose behind the dlc. Comeon obama oppo research team. Find those quotes on tape.

John McCutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 3:13 PM:

Bill's got a bad case of Bush-in-mouth disease

I hope he keeps up the fine work for his wife.

Keeps reminding us how irrelevant she is to the entire Clinton Drama 2008

As irrelevant as she was a decade ago

Keith wrote on January 25, 2008 3:14 PM:

Until we get the full context, there's no way to know precisely what Bill is talking about here. On the surface though, Bill's quote is precisely the same point Obama was making.

bob wrote on January 25, 2008 3:14 PM:

Now I understand what's happening.

Hillary is running to be Bill's Chief of Staff and head of the bureaucracy.

I guess that's what happens when you run for co-president. Always a risk that candidate A says the opposite of candidate B.

Two more terms! Two more terms!

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:14 PM:

hadenough is a paid Hillary troll.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:15 PM:

You don’t run the bureaucracy but you are responsible for seeing that your ideas turn into positive changes in other people’s lives.

What? By magic? By bimbo eruptions?

lestatdelc wrote on January 25, 2008 3:15 PM:

The left-side of the blogsphere is pretty familiar wit the IOKIYAR (It's OK if you're a Republican) ...so I think we can start coining the acronym IOKIYAC (It's OK if you're a Clinton).

LJ wrote on January 25, 2008 3:16 PM:

Here's a link for those who believe Hillary's lie that Obama represented Rezko.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/23/chicago_tribune_factcheckorg_w_1.php

Note to hadenough: when you correct the record after some sleazy slime merchant like Hillary Clinton tells an outright lie about you, that's not an "attack."

mcc wrote on January 25, 2008 3:16 PM:

I could be wrong but it sounds like Bill is in fact referencing Obama's quote

Greg, is there some way to get a quote with more complete context?

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:19 PM:

LJ, I like this link even better on the clintons' rezko lies and the fact links to info puts the trailer trashing by the clintons' campaign in perspective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080124/cm_huffpost/083040;_ylt=Auo_ukcrYdhKQ7hhxK2mcYf9wxIF

KyleXY wrote on January 25, 2008 3:19 PM:

Good to see Obama saying he's got cover from Bill Clinton to be a hands-off president who only likes to read things 5 minutes before he needs things.

Keep reminding us Obama.

Obama needs to fight Hillary, not Bill Clinton. Voters see an inexperienced eloquent gadfly trying to tarnish Bill Clinton and are like "who the hell is this guy and what has he done?".

DEMOCRATS LIKE BILL CLINTON!!! WAKE UP OBAMA PEOPLE. THE MESSAGE BOARDS ARE NOT THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTORATE.

The Clintons know this that is why Bill is still out there and not going anywhere

God Obama's campaign is so dense.

eorse wrote on January 25, 2008 3:21 PM:

The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now fully embedded in our collective bloodstream.

Obama: Welcome to the two Clintons' attack machine.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton.html

Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 3:25 PM:

I think that the fundamental problem here is the Clinton campaign's repeated attempts to exploit any comment of Obama's that could be construed as problematic for him and highlighting it out of context. It might work if he was saying crazy huckabeeish stuff, but the quotes are so common sensible that it's not to hard to find examples of the Clintons saying similar things themselves at some point in their long public careers, such as Hillary's Reagan praise.

As a result, this strategy continues to backfire, making Clinton look mendacious. I think that Clinton campaign has actually failed put a significant chink in Obama's armor since they abandoned the whole "experience" line, though they have managed at least to keep him on the defensive.

It will be interesting to see what happens after SC. I suspect that if the Clinton campaign fails to find a better issue with which to take on Obama, he will continue to close the gap rapidly before Feb 5. (But maybe that's just wishful thinking.)

ihatebeets wrote on January 25, 2008 3:31 PM:

It seems something interesting is happening here. Hillary bashes Obama for saying Ronald Reagan was a transformative figure in American politcal history and BAM! the media begins airing quotes where Hillary is praising Reagan. Hillary bashes Obama on his relationship with Rezko and WHACK! Matt Lauer produces a photo of the Clintons with Tony Rezko. The media must be deriving a great sense of delicious pleasure in making the Clintons look like hypocrites. Only this time, its Hill's and Bill's own fault for taking such a low-road tack.

Jess wrote on January 25, 2008 3:32 PM:

Miggs ... that is such a memorable quote that it just rolls off the tongue, eh?

~ Jess

grover_rover wrote on January 25, 2008 3:35 PM:

Yet another example of Bill and Hillary having past comments that are amazingly hypocritical given their attacks against Obama.

Another example would be Bill and Hillary both praising Reagan in the past, and Hillary citing Reagan and Bush Sr as two of her favorite presidents, and then trying to get Bush Sr to be part of the Hillary administration to run all over the world to be the "fresh" face of the "new" US, then turning around and attacking Obama over and over again for something he didn't even say.

Another good example would be her "experience" vs "change" argument, since there are plenty of nice quotes from Bill circa 1991-2 about how change is more important because at the time HE was being attacked for being inexperienced and HE was coming in as the "change" candidate.

Oh, this is a goodie too:

"If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes - it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- Bill Clinton 10/26/2004

Yet, his wife implies that if you vote for her opponent, terrorist may attack (the first day even). Also, when Obama gave a very intelligent historical analysis of Reagan's role in US politics, Hillary and Bill jumped on him and distorted his words and lied to the American public about what he said. Wow, how's that for supporting the candidate "trying to get you to think" vs the one who is "appealing to your fears".

Turns out the Clintons will say and do whatever they want when it helps them.

What hypocrites..

john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 3:39 PM:

The Crass Clintons Move to Steal the Nomination!

First the Clintons' Machine created Tsunami Tuesday hoping to bury insurgent candidacies before the first vote was cast.

Then, when that didn't work, the Clintons machine moved up the Michigan and Florida primaries for 2/5 Disaster Insurance

Then, when that didn't work......

The Clinton's Michigan/Florida Scam
Mrs. Clinton Calls for State Delegations to be Seated

I thought she'd have the decency to wait until at least March before she sprung the fraud.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:40 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_florida_delegates

May the Farce be with you

RaymondA wrote on January 25, 2008 3:40 PM:

The notion that Obama was saying that all he does is announce a vision and then never follow up is a false notion. Hillary was engaging in her usual "straw man" style of argument -- putting into her opponents' mouth an idea the opponent never said, and than attacking the falsely imputed idea. Rove loved the "straw man" tactic. The recent Clinton radio ad -- mercifully pulled because it was so widely panned as mendacious -- was the best example of this.

Obama simply said that the President has to be a forest guy not a detail guy. Jimmy Carter famously helped schedule use of the White House tennis court and failed at implementing his broader vision. Obama never suggested that the President just phone in a vision and not hire people able to execute on it.

Look at O's campaign. If he loses, and I admit the poll aren't great, look at what an effective organization he built from scratch and managed by appointing top people and letting them do their thing.

He knocked off Biden, Dodd, and Richardson in short order -- none of them managers. He is almost certainly going to come out ahead of Edwards, who began the race with the very high profile of being his party's former VP nominee. And he's giving the two-headed and extremely powerful and well-oiled Clinton machine a run for its money.

It's ludicrous to claim that he does not know the importance of ensuring that ideas are implemented through an efficient organization. All he ever was saying is that he should not be the person getting bogged down in smallish details.

Bill Clinton was famously a bit disorganized as well. And he did not merely have trouble keeping track of paper. He took multitasking to new heights or depths, depending on your perspective.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 3:40 PM:

Do you all remember Hillary's comment to Russert when he contrasted her statement to one given by Bill Clinton?

"He's not standing up here!"

Bill Clinton in 1992 may have run more like Obama in 2008 than Hillary Clinton in 2008. And we all remember how Bill Clinton was schooled by the GOP during his first term. I'd like to avoid that if I can.

Right now I agree more with Hillary's vision of the presidency and the characteristics we need in a president that I do with Obama's. I don't care what campaign themes Bill may have emphasized in 1992.

Bill and Hillary Clinton share many of the same perspectives, lessons, characteristics, and battle scars but they are not the same people. I am voting for Hillary Clinton and right now that seems like a better choice for president than the 1992 Bill Clinton.

CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 3:42 PM:

"If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes - it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- Bill Clinton 10/26/2004

Nice find, grover_rover.

I guess we know which side of the street Bill's on on this issue after he said voting for Obama was a roll of the dice.

He's going to be bummed if the country actually follows his 2004 advice...

RaymondA wrote on January 25, 2008 3:42 PM:

One more thing. Doris Kearns Goodwin, for what it's worth, said that FDR himself had the sort of small-bore paper management problems that Obama admitted he had when asked that question about his greatest weakness.

Andrew D wrote on January 25, 2008 3:43 PM:

It does sound like a specific rebuttal to Obama's original quote, now that I look at it a second time. But it far more nuanced than Hillary's original rebuttal, to the point that they're really just arguing semantics.

Obama said: "I wouldn't run the bureaucracy." Hillary said: "Hey, how do you expect to get stuff done if you're not hands-on?" (Obama didn't say he wouldn't manage; he said he wouldn't micromanage.) Bill said: "You don't run the bureaucracy, but you still have to get stuff done." (Which is agreeing with Obama's original point).

I hate, hate, hate the fact that the Clinton campaign attack's Obama's statements based not on what everyone knows he means, but on some sort of bizarre way they can be construed. Here they take his statement to mean that he'd sit around and talk about "hope" for four years instead of working toward reform.

When was that ever implied? And how can this whole argument be construed as anything other than a tactic by the Clinton campaign to generate noise?

CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 3:45 PM:

I hate, hate, hate the fact that the Clinton campaign attack's Obama's statements based not on what everyone knows he means, but on some sort of bizarre way they can be construed.

They are the geniuses who gave us "It depends on what the definition of is is".

We can expect no less in this election.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 3:46 PM:

RaymondA,

I agree with you that effective management is not precluded by an Obama presidency (although I think he will take longer than Senator Clinton to get there).

When he stresses the power of his vision and personality over stressing operational solutions, he sounds very Bush like to many of us. Sorry, but I don't want to take that chance right now.

ChrisO wrote on January 25, 2008 3:46 PM:

Obama's supporters are employing the same tactics regarding Rezcko that they always accuse the Clinton campaign of using. There are a litany of issues regarding Obama and Reczko. Continually focusing on whether Obama represented him, and exactly how many hours he put in, is an obvious attempt to avoid talking about the other issues. It's a common tactic to focus on the one issue you think is defensible, and thus declare "game over," as if being right on the reprsentation issue thus translates to being right on all of the related issues.

I notice Obama's supporters are spending much less time talking about the other Rezcko issues that are much harder to sweep under the rug.

DemUnity08 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:48 PM:

Andrew D:

It's Obama's responsibility to make his points clearly, not the Clinton's responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding what he probably meant to say.

Clinton/Obama '08

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:51 PM:

"eorse wrote on January 25, 2008 3:21 PM:
The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now fully embedded in our collective bloodstream.
Obama: Welcome to the two Clintons' attack machine.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton.html"

''He serves as chair of the most important committee in the United States Congress,'' Clinton said of Rangel. ''He didn't get there by leapfrogging. He got there by lots of hard work.''

It really must be galling to her to see Obama having the effontery to challenge her and her 35 YEARS OF MAKING CHANGE!

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:54 PM:

Chris o, this is about the 4th or 5th time I have posted this about the factual fallacies of the rezko trailer trashing by the clintons. Also, another poster posted 4 or 5 links to the chicago sun times that went through everything with a fine tooth comb. There is no basis for the lies and smears from the clintons' campaign. How much was that marc rich pardon by the way?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080124/cm_huffpost/083040;_ylt=Auo_ukcrYdhKQ7hhxK2mcYf9wxIF

3G wrote on January 25, 2008 3:55 PM:

I'm supprised that one one (Obama) mentioned that we already have a 'hands-on' presidency.

Let's not kid ourselves about who the current Pres is...Cheney.

He has to be, by far and away, the most 'hands-on' President we have ever had.

Alegre wrote on January 25, 2008 3:58 PM:

Sen. Obama seems to be confused on one simple point (AGAIN!)...

Preident (Bill) Clinton isn't running for preident this year. Sen. Obama's rival in this election is Sen. HILLARY Clinton.

Rhoda wrote on January 25, 2008 3:59 PM:

The only way this works is if it becomes a news story and the best way for that to happen is have the candidate articulate this. The sheer mendacity of the Clintons is astonishing, but not surprising. Between the Regan stuff, her comments on why she voted for Iraq, and the Philly debate, plus this he'd have a nice one minute commercial he should air national. Just their very own comments. He could call it clarity.

It's how they roughed him up in New Hampshire with the mailer on abortion.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 4:00 PM:

"DemUnity08 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:48 PM:
Andrew D:
It's Obama's responsibility to make his points clearly, not the Clinton's responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding what he probably meant to say.
Clinton/Obama '08"

They know exactly what he meant to say as it is clear to everyone else that actually hears it. What they are doing is to take statements out of context and frame them so that low information voters will come to a false conclusion.
You can applaud their tactics as hardball politics, whatever, but don't pretend that they're being above board about this.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 4:02 PM:

Alegre, mr. bill isn't running? I thought we were voting for a third term for the clintons. We're not? That's news to me.

CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 4:03 PM:

alegre:

Preident (Bill) Clinton isn't running for preident this year. Sen. Obama's rival in this election is Sen. HILLARY Clinton.

Obama isn't the only one who seems confused...Bill seems a bit shaky on the fact that he isn't the candidate as well...

Greg wrote on January 25, 2008 4:17 PM:

okay all. a new update has been posted, complete with a full transcript.

pkoso wrote on January 25, 2008 4:18 PM:

Alegre...perhaps you should remind bill of that. though if you expect anything less in a GE with the republicans, you're sorely mistaken. it's the clinton brand...nay, it's bill clinton that republicans will be running against and it will be very very ugly.

Paulie wrote on January 25, 2008 4:20 PM:

The clintons are EERILY similar to the republicans.
* Both demand sheep-like loyalty: follow us and don't ask questions.
* Both would prefer to talk about their opponents faults instead of their own qualities.
* Both create 'faults' of their opponents out of thin air i.e. no substance.
* Both have very few desirable qualities.
* Both are 'in it' for themselves only.

You want more republican-like leadership, vote for hillary.

You want our country going in the right direction, vote for obama or Edwards.

zonk wrote on January 25, 2008 4:30 PM:

Sheesh...

I really like this Obama fellow. I even kinda like this Hillary Clinton gal...

But this Bill Clinton guy? Man - I cannot see how anyone is ever gonna vote for him for President... he just seems like an ass.

w2 wrote on January 25, 2008 4:39 PM:

You guys argue back and forth about the dumbest issues.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 4:51 PM:

Greg:

Sorry, I'm not seeing how this is critical of Obama's statement. It seems to me he's making the argument for his wife, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that it's a backhanded attack on Obama. If anything, I read this as him CLEANING UP what HRC has previously said. She's talked as if she's running for chief bureaucrat and not to be POTUS. His comments move her off this point without her having to walk it back.

In essence he's echoing Obama's point without acknowledging that his wife was wrong in the first place. At least that's my read of things. But, alas, I am biased.

Merlin wrote on January 25, 2008 4:51 PM:

Alegre wrote on January 25, 2008 3:58 PM:
Sen. Obama seems to be confused on one simple point (AGAIN!)...

Preident (Bill) Clinton isn't running for preident this year. Sen. Obama's rival in this election is Sen. HILLARY Clinton.

Do you really believe it is possible to separate them once they are in the WH?

NCSteve wrote on January 25, 2008 5:03 PM:

ChrisO:

I am unclear what Rezko has to do with this post. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect your a Clintonite desperate to change the subject because you can't doublethink yourself out of the cognitive dissonance this post is causing.

But, hey, I'll bite.

As another, wiser, commenter on a post that actually had something to do with Rezko, said:

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:5.

Or, as long as we're getting Biblical, how 'bout:

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7. Genders are a bit reversed on that one.

I simply do not understand how the Clintons and the Clintonites think rapping Obama for having taken campaign cash from one, count 'em, one sleazy contributor is a winning issuse for them.

Rezko clearly loved to play the big-shot contributor and sponsor of rising young talent. He gave about 60K total to Obama's state and federal senate campaigns and was a bundler for a lot more. He gave a lot to a lot of people in Illinois politics.

The question is this does Hillary really want to go down the road of tarring politicians with the sins of their contributors and bundlers?

Rezko was indirectly (i.e. thorugh his wife) involved in a real estate transaction with Obama that was totally above-board from a financial standpoint yet which contained a tiny whiff of the appearence of impropriety which some less than stellar journalists, egged on by his political enemies, are trying to inflate into some big scandal. And yet, the more they dig, the clearer it is that there's no there there.

Do Hillary and Bill Clinton, of all the people on God's still somewhat green Earth, want to go down that road?

When Obama was in state government, Obama wrote exactly two letters to the City of Chicago supporting projects to construct housing for low income senior citizens by companies associated with Rezko. In one of those deals, the company bought land with a leaking underground storage tank for a buck, spent a hundred thousand dollars remediating the environmental hazard (which had previously rendered the land unmarketable and unusuable) and put up housing for low income citizens. If anyone expressed disatisafaction with that outcome, I haven't heard about it. Rezko says the letters were unsolicited. Obama says he did it because his district desparately needed the housing (which it did).

So, worst case scenario, when he was in state government, Obama did a minor favor for a big contributor that benefitted his own constituents and redounded in no way to Obama's monetary benefit. Once again, half-witted journalists, egged on by his political enemies, are sniffing, and scratching and digging into his activities as a state official, unable to find anything actually wrong, but insisting that their failure to find something is itself damning.

And, once again, I ask you, why, in the name of all that good and decent, do you think the Clintons can come out ahead by pushing that storyline?

timbnyc wrote on January 25, 2008 5:14 PM:

Clintons: filling the air with noise so that no one thinks to look at their respective records.

john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:16 PM:

I am on record
Sargent's on Notic

Note the dates
Nota bene

TPM CAFE Exchange - Marshall Ganz post
On January 21, 2008 - 1:42pm cloudy said:
A very good column. I would like to see SOMEONE grapple with the issue of how the primary schedule is structured, with a "MONSTER TUESDAY" coming up Feb 5 that acts as an almost insurmountable firewall defending whoever started out as the presumptive nominee (HRC) as against any reasonably effective insurgent candidacy (Obama).
WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
On January 21, 2008 - 1:49pm jexster said:J. McCutchen
You're preaching to the converted here! Monster Tuesday was supposed to render the Clintons inevitable and eliminate all effective opposition months before the first vote was cast. We saw an unrelenting campaign unfold precisely along these lines last fall.
But something happened on the way to the coronation. Barack Obama happened, and when it became clear that his was a viable "insurgency", the Clinton machine responded by taking out some coronation insurance. The Michigan and Florida primaries were moved up.
The DNC didn't stand for the scam but the result is nearly as effective. If this nominating process should fail to produce a presumptive nominee, the Clintons have insurance in the unseated delegates they "won" in Florida and Michigan.
This is their hole card. Don't for a minute think that they will hesitate to play it
On January 22, 2008 - 10:10am destor23 said:
If Hillary beats Obama it's not going to be the result of some zany conspiracy.
On January 23, 2008 - 5:54pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
Nothing hidden about the conspiracy. Bill Clinton's been building this machine since 1986
If Hillary beats Obama, it will be because of Bill's rolodex of party officials
On January 25, 2008 - 3:28pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
First the Clintons Machine created Tsunami Tuesday hoping to bury insurgent candidacies before the first vote was cast.
Then, when that didn't work, the Clintons machine moved up the Michigan and Florida primaries for 2/5 Disaster Insurance
Then, when that didn't work......
The Clinton's Michigan/Florida Scam
Mrs. Clinton Calls for State Delegations to be Seated
I thought she'd have the decency to wait until at least March before she sprung the fraud

There are no do-overs in politics

It is time for The Clintons to go

jamois wrote on January 25, 2008 5:40 PM:

Greg - I think you're right, to the extent that he may have intended it as a slam, but it came out in complete agreement, context or no.

The even bigger takeaway here, though, should be is his last line about needing Republican votes in the Senate. Her lack of allies across the aisle is one of her biggest liabilities. This is the last thing he should be talking about.

Even a cursory review of the legislation she has introduced shows only a handful of Republican co-sponsors, and on bills with fewer than 20 co-sponsors, I can't find a one. The dividing line? Actual progressive issues. Whenever she introduces a progressive bill, she gets nothing but Dem support and it dies.

Obama's record is almost exactly the opposite. He needs to hit her much harder on her complete lack of Congressional GOPer allies, and this quote from Bill is the perfect opportunity.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for gridlock and a Republican-majority Congress in 2010....

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 7:05 PM:

Wow, Greg. I'm impressed. This was almost like real, balanced reporting. Congratulations.

That last line about how Obama doesn't disagree with BILL'S ideas could obviously use a little work, but we know you can't help yourself. Keep up the effort--you just may become a real reporter after all.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 7:14 PM:

jamois:

"Obama's record is almost exactly the opposite. He needs to hit her much harder on her complete lack of Congressional GOPer allies, and this quote from Bill is the perfect opportunity."

That could be a problem. You saw how they attacked him for "praising" Reagan (even though Bill is on record as having given Reagan far more fulsome praise). Obama wants to make the point that he's NOT a triangulator like the Clintons are. Obama's brand of bipartisanship is far more pragmatic and far less calculating than the Clintons'. In the game of political spin, you've always got to set up your next shot. This is the part that Obama is now learning and getting much better at. If you play the game right, and you get to know your opponent, you can actually say something that appears to be a mistake and then, when your opponent uses the expected attack, you drop the bomb on them. It's ugly, but it's the only way you beat a team like the Clintons. They know all the games.

What I'd like to see Obama do is to shake things out and refocus the campaign a bit. In the heat of battle, we've all been a little thrown off by the mud and the blood and the sounds of war. It would be good for him every once in awhile to remind the troops why it's not just about experience. It's also about judgment and heart and vision. That's where he has Hillary beat by miles.

Ebenezer wrote on January 25, 2008 7:19 PM:

All this brouhaha misses the point that the Bush Administration has done a thorough job of getting rid of many qualified civil servants and gutting our government. It's isn't just FEMA that's been destroyed, and the damage to our country goes far beyond anything the media, mainstream or otherwise, has reported.

The next President will need to do a lot of rebuilding, getting rid of all the Bush flunkies and re-recruiting many of those who were forced out or marginalized by Bush.

loki wrote on January 25, 2008 8:37 PM:

Damn...I don't get any props at all from you Greg? Ah well...

Tom J wrote on January 25, 2008 9:12 PM:

Obama DOES think the presidency is a CEO job, but NOT a COO job. He also said it's being a manager, and uses his campaign (building up the strongest 50-state organization, just since January 2007) as an example of his ability to manage very well.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/VIDEO/80119062/1375/NEWS19
45:30 - 48:07

Tom J wrote on January 25, 2008 9:25 PM:

Okay, I semi-retract that. :-)

Obama was explaining why Mitt Romney's idea of being a CEO was not what was needed in a President:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/FRONTPAGE/712220314

And when I think of how many lay-offs Bain Capital was responsible for, I understand Obama's point. :-) The President has to have a larger view.

Jay wrote on January 26, 2008 12:09 AM:

I think Bill would be an Obama guy if his wife wasn't running against him.

Bill was only 1 year older when he ran for President than Obama is now - he was the kid from Hope. The Clinton's are putting him through the grind - calling him a kid, roughing him up with their tactics. Do you think this might be a test of his mettle? See if he can bounce through the attacks, fight when he has to fight but keep his message of unity pure?

I think the Democratic Party will be looking on at Obama with high interest - the potential to bring so many to the party, his appeal, his oration ability and the loyalty he inspires in those that back him.

stellaa wrote on January 26, 2008 3:30 AM:

Get it into your heads:It comes down to this. Listen and watch Hillary and a bunch of guys. She says what she want to say. She says it in few words. She is clear. Without all the yadi yadi daddi pompous crap men spew in meetings. Do you guys get it? We had enough of your crap. All those geezer Senators who went for Obama are just a bunch of yellow belly wimps. Real people get it, but people who want to be transcended (what the ef is that anyway, and is it ok if someone does it for you in public, should you not do this privately?) Who cares what Bill says, it's about Hillary. But you male oriented fools, focus on the dick. Do you ever talk about anything other than Bill?

Do not transcend me or bend me. If you want to be transcended, for Peet's sake go do some real community organizing. Go get feed some people, go house the mentally ill, go fight for affordable housing in neighborhoods that don't want poor people, but don't tell me you feel changed by backing Obama. Get a grip. He is the product of change of the month. Package just for you.
Transcending you into oblivion.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 10:00 AM:

In the Reno debate Hillary said:

"I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together. But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy. You've got to pick good people, certainly, but you have to hold them accountable every single day.”

I agree with those who say Bill would be the vision person and Hillary would be his Chief of Staff. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow co-presidents or a third term for Bill.

Bill will be Hillary's unelected Cheney, I suppose. But who in the world would be stupid enough to run as her VP, with Bill in the China Shop.

random wrote on January 26, 2008 10:03 AM:

What exactly is Hillary's management experience? CEO, COO, or whatever? Even the office of the First Lady had its troubles: missing law firm records, unauthorized CIA records, Travelgate.

puzzled wrote on January 26, 2008 10:07 AM:

Interesting. Hillary is running on the claim that as First Lady she gained all the experience and learned all the lessons of Bill Clinton's presidency. But, she and Bill are at opposite ends of the spectrum in the way they describe what being president is all about.

Healthcare, Iraq, Iran, Bill's personal life, Bill's presidency. Either Hillary doesn't pay attention or she doesn't learn lessons well.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 10:14 AM:

stella said: "[Hillary] says it in few words. She is clear. Without all the yadi yadi daddi pompous crap men spew in meetings. Do you guys get it?"

Yeah Stella, I get it. Everything Mrs. Bill Clinton says is a LIE, and everything she has done since law school came to her because of her HUSBAND. Do you get it?

Concerned in Iowa wrote on January 26, 2008 10:19 AM:

stellaa,

You should be directing your venom at Hillary. She is the one who send her husband out to defend her. She is too weak to be president. She is Bill's wife, nothing more, nothing less.

Why aren't women offened by Hillary? Why are they supporting a woman so dependent on her husband. Why don't they support a woman qualified on her own merits by talent and hard work. Hillary lives on Bill's coat tails.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 10:21 AM:

Poor stellaa. You sound like a victim just like Hillary. Buy some Haggan Daz and weep about how evil men are. Please.

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 10:27 AM:

Jay said "I think Bill would be an Obama guy if his wife wasn't running against him."

Yep. Too bad Bill isn't a former Democratic president of the United States and titular head of the Democratic party, so he could support all the qualified Democratic candidates or by tradition, stay out of the primaries. Too bad nepotism trumps partriotism.

Bill could have been a loyal husband (hmmm new assignment for him) by speaking out in favor of Hillary without attacking Obama. But you can't unring the Bill.

stellaa wrote on January 26, 2008 11:31 AM:

Anonymous wrote on January 26, 2008 10:21 AM:
Poor stellaa. You sound like a victim just like Hillary.

That is your idiotic stereotype that is perpetuated by the MSM about what women do.

Why don't you guys go out and do something constructive instead of turning our primary process into some dungeons and dragons or some moronic fantasy football. So slacker boys, get up and go in the streets and fight for your brothers that are dying in the war. Stop with the Wii, stop with the Game boys and do something maybe some responsibility in life. Stop obsessing about Hillary and Bill and let them fight it out.

You people are having some collective hysteria thing going. Is this the first time in your lives you watched a campaign?

Brownell wrote on January 26, 2008 5:01 PM:

Ugh. This is truly a disgusting thread. The original post was about the role of a president, and even though the comments became another long sexist rant, I'm still interested in the original point. OK, I'm not opposed to the idea of a president who leads with a vision. But whether or not Bill and Barack agree, we should not get carried away with the idea that a president is above the mundane nuts and bolts of the bureaucracy. Two things make this a different time in our history.

1. The current office holder and his "administration" have infested every branch of the government with wingnuts and political hacks, determined to hang on to their jobs just to undermine a Democratic administration at every point.

2. The Repugnant media and think tanks and elected officials have agreed on a strategy of intransigent opposition and obstruction to Democrats in power. It doesn't matter if the public disagrees and dislikes them, or even if they vote them out of office. The Repugs' well-funded support system will find them good jobs in their think tanks, media and lobbying firms, so their right-wing loyalty is to the party before the country. Their stated goal is to stick with mindless opposition and obstruction until the public eventually sees the Democrats and ineffectual. Americans don't like losers, even losers who are right. So, the Repugs hope that by 2012 the public will disdain the Democrats as losers and be ready for another Republican presidency. THAT is the water the next president will swim in.

To me, this reality is more critical than whether a candidate is right on the issues or has an inspiring message. If you know the next president is going to be sandbagged at every turn with unbending obstruction, ask yourself, Do we need a big-picture inspirational leader above the grubby political slime? Or do we need a compulsive worker who is interested in details and knows where the bodies are buried in the bureaucracy?

Put differently, which is more important for the next leader of the free world, a message of hope? Or brains, dedication and hard work? I think this is a moment in our history that calls for the worker bee.

I can respect people who want to be inspired, but this time is not ripe for transformational change. This is not the 1960's.

I remember reading something Al Gore reputedly told a supporter who was urging him to run. He said, The primary job of the next president will be to clean up the mess. Hillary can do that very well.

Well said. I agree.

Vito wrote on January 26, 2008 8:11 PM:

If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes - it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." — Bill Clinton 10/26/2004

Vitorrio wrote on January 26, 2008 8:33 PM:

TO Brownell:

With much respect, I'd like to challenge your assertion that Hillary is the most experienced with some evidence, versus conjecture and political platitudes put out by the Clitnons and CNN.

1. Obama has more experience than Hillary in elected office, and has a much more substantial record in getting tough legislation passed: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1704117,00.html

2. This talks more in depth about Obama's record and specific achievments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

3. A response to your quote" Do we need a big-picture inspirational leader above the grubby political slime? Or do we need a compulsive worker who is interested in details and knows where the bodies are buried in the bureaucracy?"

Hillary and Bill have been outspoken supporters of outsourcing.
1.http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-clinton-supports-destruction-of.html
2.http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/critics_tie_clinton_to_offshoring/
3.http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf

And now in 2008, as the election draws near, suddendly, she is not pro-outosurcing of jobs?
Evidence here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics

The Clinton's will say anything to Americans to get elected, but they are some of the most conservative, entrenched money interest candidates out there.

The only 'vision' that Hillary has for our country, is to outsource more of our jobs. There will be no grand changes with her in office.

You try to dismiss Obama's vision for the country, and you distort his record without pointing to any sources.

Well, I have cited all mine. Because the truth will always trump a lie.

Obama has more political years in office, has spent his entire career fighting for the common man, and, just for good measure, has a brillant vision for our country.

Obama 2008!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)