Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Bill Did Fundamentally Change The Country

Comments (199)

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 1:31 PM:

A few disclaimers here:

1) I never liked Bill Clinton when he was president.

2) I definitely will vote for Sen Clinton in the GE if she gets the nomination.

With those two facts on the table, I have to say that I find Penn's claim totally bogus. The reason why I never liked Bill Clinton until after he left (and Bush came in) is that at the time it was so transparently obvious that he was playing the game by the Republican's own rules. His "brilliant" strategy was to achieve tactical victory cum substantive defeat by taking a Republican idea, muting it down just a little and then getting it passed so that he could steal the GOP's thunder and take credit for "getting something done." It did not go unnoticed by many of my fellow democrats that the "something" he got done was usually something that the Republicans wanted (NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, etc).

Obama was precisely right. Bill Clinton did not change the nations trajectory. He was playing Reagan's game by Reagan's rules, and simply doing it in a way that moved the pieces around to a few (only a few) places to the left of where Reagan's own people would have wanted them to land.

That said, I had much rather see the Clinton folks making this argument than the one that they were making last week. This argument, however unconvincing, is not premised on lies and distortions. As such, I wish Mr Penn luck with this approach, although his pitch cuts no ice with me or mine.

kjoe wrote on January 25, 2008 1:32 PM:

The single most suspicious thing about tpm the last few days----your poll tracker listings. Very little about South carolina---very much about "Hillary is doing great in Florida!!!!!!!!!" What's your point??

Unlike that Slimball Penn---I will give you somne specifics about the Clinton presidency: Healthcare failed. Gingrich had a huge victory in 1994. Reich was fired by Dick Morris, and welfare reform was passed. Saddam's son just talked about how surprized he was when Bush invaded---he expected the same thing as Clinton did before the impeachment vote---4 days of ineffective bombing (I wish Bush had been smart enough to do that, instead of what he did), and finally disbarment a few months before the defeat of Al Gore.

Jeremy wrote on January 25, 2008 1:34 PM:

"the era of big government is over."

Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan?

Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:34 PM:

Hmm... Mark Penn.... Union Buster. Good Dem creds...

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/mark_penn_unions_and_hillary_c.php

Great spokesman choice for the Democratic base. Or perhaps there are "good unions" and "bad unions," re: Mitt Romney a couple weeks ago?

Anyway, Mark Penn substantially fails in his argument. Meaning of the word "trajectory:'
trajectory

tra·jec·to·ry
Pronunciation:
\trə-ˈjek-t(ə-)rē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural tra·jec·to·ries
Etymology:
New Latin trajectoria, from feminine of trajectorius of passing, from Latin traicere to cause to cross, cross, from trans-, tra- trans- + jacere to throw — more at jet
Date:
1696
1 : the curve that a body (as a planet or comet in its orbit or a rocket) describes in space
2 : a path, progression, or line of development resembling a physical trajectory

Personally, to me, trajectory also has an inertial connotation, meaning that that sort of development and plan would continue after the actor causing the trajectory was off the scene.....

I'll let another connect the dots.

Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 1:38 PM:

Bill only looks good in retrospect when compared to Dubya, but I don't know of anyone who seriously thinks he brought about any fundamental change. If that was their idea of fundamental change, then that just confirms that they don't know what change really means.

This is really the same argument we've been having the whole campaign. The Clintons simply want to return back to the 90s, while Obama and Edwards have talked about moving the country forward in a different direction.

Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:38 PM:

Combine my background with Greg D's analysis, and I think you have a pretty definitive counterpoint to Mark Penn.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 1:39 PM:

Dear Gregg D,

My sentiments exactly. I agree 1000 percent. I still don't understand why dems are so enamoured with the clintons. They were basically running a republican-lite administration. Why don't people remember that?

KyleXY wrote on January 25, 2008 1:40 PM:

I'd take Bill Clinton over BHO any day. Obama has no experience and all he can do is give a fancy speech.

Obama is going to lose because of his injection of race. White Democrats are leaving Obama because of his race baiting hysteria over Hillary's MLK comment.

No one talks about this because we should all love on another no matter what color, but he has a serious problem with white voters now and it is all his fault.

Jessica wrote on January 25, 2008 1:40 PM:

Maybe this was Obama's strategy. Now Clinton's record in the Whitehouse is fair game. While he was much better than Bush there is a whole lot of stuff that they probably would prefer not talking about.

Jeremy wrote on January 25, 2008 1:42 PM:

KyleXY. You are sick.

wes2 wrote on January 25, 2008 1:46 PM:

What Greg DeL said.

With the added comment that it's pretty pathetic to rely on your own paid hack to testify to your husband's record. I do believe that's what's known as "an interested witness" and therefore inherently less credible.

Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:46 PM:

KXY-

Maybe. Of course, Barack Hussein Obama (I use his middle name because I am not scared of it) isn't a problem with this white voter.

Can you please show some evidence of this racial imbalance outside of the south (a place with a history of racial imbalances and issues)? Does the same become true in, say, Missouri, NY, MA, or elsewhere? Or are those simple assertions and talking points from HQ?

Irritating....

Last Name Meaning & Genealogy Links for the Surname HUSSAIN

Meaning & Origin: From the Arabic personal name, Husayn, derived from the Arabic hasuna, meaning "to be good" or "to be handsome or beautiful." Hasan, for which Hussain is a derivative, was the son of Ali and the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Surname Origin: Muslim
Alternate Surname Spellings: HUSAIN, HASAN, HUSAYN, HUSSEIN, HUSEIN

I'm not scared of the name "Hussein," because I think America as a whole needs to have a mirror shown to its collective face. You see, we think we are a very beautiful people, with such high minded ideals and blah, blah, blah.

I argue that is not the case. Then again, I'm just another liberal from the "Hate America First" crowd....

KyleXY wrote on January 25, 2008 1:47 PM:

Jeremy it's the truth. Obama made this a race war and now people are taking sides. I'm just stating what the polls are showing.

Same thing Dick Morris said.

Politics isn't always politically correct or what you want to hear.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 1:48 PM:

Well, its the day before sc. What is the penn game plan to get some sympathy votes? Guesses anyone? It has to happen in the next couple of hours to hit the evening news. Anyone?

kjoe wrote on January 25, 2008 1:48 PM:

regarding KyleXY---this has no connection to politics---but if it is a robotyper, I would like to know where to buy one for one of my businesses. I promise, I will not use it for anything connected to politics---but, technically, it seems to do an adequate job of putting out basic Krap.

Elizabeth wrote on January 25, 2008 1:49 PM:

Holy Moly! or maybe that should be Holy Cheney!

Just took a glance at the 22nd amendment which bars someone from serving more than two terms (or 1 and 1/2 terms) as president. Actually .... that's not precisely what it says. It says no one shall be ELECTED to the office of president more than twice. That would not rule out a 2-term presiden from being ELECTED Vice-President, would it?

Has anyone asked Hillary who she might be thinking about for Vice President lately?

Shudder! (actual text below)

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

hello_world wrote on January 25, 2008 1:49 PM:

Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Bill Did Fundamentally Change The Country

But unfortunately for some Clinton supporters, Bill isn't running for President. Geek, Esq. wrote on January 25, 2008 1:52 PM:

It's not a trajectory if it doesn't survive your term in office.

T wrote on January 25, 2008 1:52 PM:

Hillary Clinton has duped downscale white voters with the same tactic that KyleXY just employed...randomly bring up race as an issue while blaming Barack Obama for it.

Of course, the only way Barack Obama has himself served to inject race into this campaign was when he had the temerity to both have black skin and dare take the first contest away from Hillary Clinton.

ArchPundit wrote on January 25, 2008 1:53 PM:

How is sending out the guy who created the school uniform strategy to say they fundamentally changed the course of the country at all credible?

Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:53 PM:

KXY-

Quoting Dick Morris is not a healthy position to take on a liberal blog. What is even more interesting is that fact you are quoting Dick Morris in order to support your position on HRC.

And that, folks, is an obvious paradox if I have ever seen one.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 1:54 PM:

Have you included Monica?

Angry Vet wrote on January 25, 2008 1:56 PM:

Prince of Darkness suggests Obama wants Edwards as AG.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_robert_d_novak/attorney_general_edwards

Keith wrote on January 25, 2008 1:58 PM:

Greg D, nice analysis. This is a silly argument that are trying to make, and quite frankly will require folks to take a second a look at the Clinton legacy--which you summarize nicely. We'll see if Obama takes the bait.

The Clintons. Playing the Victim Card since 1991.

savvy wrote on January 25, 2008 1:59 PM:

I KNEW it!!

I said several days ago when watching that Reno Editorial interview that Obama was shifting the focus and taking the campaign to Bill Clinton. I knew his words were going to ignite a fire under WJR's ego about his legacy.

and what do we see now? HRC's campaign is now shifting to make this campaign about Bill's record. Bill is running this campaign ..he has been UNLEASHED and being the down and dirty Southern boy politician he is, he is fomenting and ranting all over the campaign trail.
He is proving that the GOP and Rove learned their tricks from the Clintons. Not vice-versa. Bill unleashed is a real backstabbing, polarizing, racebaiting, slickasswillylieing, say anything to win piece of southern trash. Ain't nothing Presidential about him at his core.

Obama is smart to make Bill implode. He rightly assessed precisely who the opponent is in this race, Hillary is just a surrogate.

Folks, might want to think that the Clintons are inside Obama's head rent free but it is precisely the opposite. Obama is in Bill's head. Obama is making Bill go off!!

Bill is making all kinds of crass remarks like Obama put out a 'hit job' on me, in reference to Obama's campaign demanding that Hill release the donor list for his library which was the focus and substance of the memo that referred to Hillary as D-Punjab, which is not in any sense an ethnic slur but a fricking geographic region if folks knew their geography in this country.

The point being that the memo questioned Bill AND Hill's finances and it asked her to release her earmarks, as well as who the contributors were to that library. The facts are Obama has released his, while Hillary has refused just as he has releashed his IRS tax returns and the Clintons have not. The truth is the Clintons may have already sold this country's to foreign investors because of who they are beholden to. We know they are into the Saudi's for tens of millions, who else will we owe with those two back in the WH? HSU didn't donate close to a million dollars cause he was not going to get anything. Hillary brought up Rezko but she had to return the largest donations ever in the history of politics, close to a million, what kind of racketeering mob boss was Hsu?

Obama is shifting the focus to transparency in government not just financially but he is going to make this a referendum on Bill's presidency as it was not that GREAT. He can demonstrated that it was GOP ideas Clinton is responsible for like NAFTA, the telecom Act, the welfare reform and draconian mandatory drug sentencing were all Bill's. All GOP ideas , too.

Obama can make a solid case that Bill capitualated and triangulated and was the catalyst for the Newt Gingrich congress and subsequent 15 year rule of the GOP in the majority. Bill's legacy was to lead the descent into the minority party and GOP majority.

Obama is totally in WJC's head!!

Let's all watch Bill implode and demonstrate to the country that this campaign is about HIS third term, that Hillary is nothing but a pawn for him to return to the WH and that we will be in for another 8 years of Clintonian doublespeak, lies, distortions and misrepresentations.

BigDaddy Clinton is fighting for his Tammy Wynette!!

Romney said it during the GOP debate last night, he can't imagine what America will be thinking will happen with Bill back in the white house with time on his hands. Just imagine.

We need to turn the page, Democrats

Go Barack!! Take it to Bill.

This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic party.

We do not need another 8 years of the Clintons.

Edwards may very well wind up heading the ticket as he will be the bridge to heal the party.

this will be a brokered convention and the Obama and Edwards folks will need to team up to take the Clintons down.

Obama/Edwards OR Edwards/Obama

They are the agents of change.

I don't care which ....it's

ABC!!!!

theWalrus wrote on January 25, 2008 1:59 PM:

Focusing discussion on Bill Clinton's achievements as President is a big mistake for the HRC campaign. I don't think highlighting his positives is going to emeliorate her negatives among voters. BC should use his charm and charisma to focus on *her* achievements and potential - not his.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:

"He is proving that the GOP and Rove learned their tricks from the Clintons."

That has got to be one of the silliest statements I've heard in a very, very long time.

RT wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:

To clarify Penn's remarks: Bill changed the country -- but all that change happened before Penn became his advisor. After Penn came on board he caved on welfare, dropped health care, and then dropped all domestic issues except school uniforms and v-chip.

I love Bill, and Hillary, but I'm pulling for Barack. One reason is that I fear the next Clinton administration will be like the last four years of the previous one. It could be like 93-95 without the missteps. But with people like Penn advising, it will likely lack any boldness.

pi wrote on January 25, 2008 2:02 PM:

Penn's not only a union buster: as a principal in Burston-Marsteller, he was intellectual author of a whole slew of corporate campaigns against environmentalists and other citizen-activists, the aim of which was to fundamentally discredit us in the public's eyes. You can see the result in, for example, Michael Reagan's current column, in which all environmentalists as "terrorists" who are "worse than Al Qaeda."

Republican Lite hardly begins to capture Penn's antidemocratic tendencies. That Hillary works with him speaks libraries.

kylexy wrote on January 25, 2008 2:05 PM:

Dick Morris is an ass, but he's right.

Wait and see.

Chris wrote on January 25, 2008 2:05 PM:

Bill and Penn should both STFU - they are making Hillary less credible and insulting feminists everywhere.

They are also damaging the Democratic Party seriously.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 2:07 PM:

White Democrats are leaving Obama because of his race baiting hysteria over Hillary's MLK comment... Obama made this a race war and now people are taking sides. I'm just stating what the polls are showing.

What polls would those be? Seriously. I have not seen any polls that show Obama's support dropping among white voters. Care to point me to one. This white voter certainly is still fine with Obama. His national average support continues to climb, which would be very hard to explain if his support were dropping among whites (who constitute, by far, the largest racial demographic in this nation).

To say that he is getting no more than 10% white democrats in a one of the four states that voted for Stromm Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy does not really serve to establish that he is alienating white democrats. It shows that he cannot get the support of a bunch of old-time segregationists, but that is hardly headline-making stuff.

PENN SAID WHAT? wrote on January 25, 2008 2:07 PM:

Unquestionably, the Clintons were gaming due to the emergence of Obama; the gap between them was reduced to zero in four months. Race? What else is new! If Obama was not prepared for the so called race card narrative, he would not be a viable candidate. Stupidity is the choice word here! The stupidity to believe one can expand by lessening another with cheap visible child like tricks. In short Clinton is galloping to the past with tools of the past to find tomorrow, and is mad as hell as Obama with the wisdom of the past gallops into tomorrow . As I said, Stupid! And yes, in South Carolina!

markg8 wrote on January 25, 2008 2:10 PM:

NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don’t Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act?

That really prepared us for the 21st century didn't it?

Maybe Terry McAuliff cleaned up on Global Crossing but I lost $20,000 out of my IRA in the dotcom bust. There's 47 million people who have no healthcare coverage today because of Hillary's failure.

Bill left the country on a totally different trajectory where we wound up with George Bush as president.

fillphil wrote on January 25, 2008 2:10 PM:

I don't know how many of the commenters, so far, were voters for Bill Clinton but I was and I'd vote for him today. So would a whole lot of other people. He utilized political savy to prove what this Country could be. He beat the Republicans at a game they thought they had sewed up. The attitude about the US, both internally and externally, was healty and respected. The difference with the present is like night and day.
I often wonder about anyone who would vote Republican. What have they done that that they can brag about? What legislation have they passed that has benefited the average American? The downhill path od Repubs starteds with Nixon and the arrogant criminally, on to Reagan and Iran/Contra (most indicments), to Geo1 and "out of the loop" to what we have now. Need I say more. Republicans lie about their Party and themselves. They are failures.

malarson2 wrote on January 25, 2008 2:11 PM:

It’s the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it’s too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues . Pass it on.

Mary wrote on January 25, 2008 2:13 PM:

"And, over the years, evil people, seeking to control others, have encouraged laziness and timidity, so that they can control and rob those who fall for the schemes. So, like dope peddlers, they use every lie they can to hook people into the destructive cycle of uncritical thinking." - Penn & Teller

"Now Clinton wants us to hear what she will do “for” us, what “she” will deliver – much as a lawyer, drawing strength not from her client but from her expertise, argues a case. Obama, on the other hand, urges people to join with him in acting for themselves and each other. A former community organizer, he learned that changing ourselves and changing the world go together, and that without mobilizing the strength of people who want change, it won’t happen." - Marshall Ganz

Andrew wrote on January 25, 2008 2:14 PM:

It's not a trajectory if it doesn't survive your term in office.

More damningly: or you pave the way for arch-neoconservatives to take hold.

The Obama campaign may finally have found the right note. He chose the same strategy McCain did in 2000: run a high-minded, generally positive campaign. It really only works on its own if your opponent chooses not to go negative.

In 2000, Bush went very negative, putting McCain in a double-bind. Either risk looking weak by absorbing the blows (something that only works with a substantial lead in the polls), or look like a hypocrite by choosing to go negative.

Since NH, the Clintons have been fighting in the gutter, scoring points on Obama and putting him in that same double-bind. However, Obama may have found the right way to hit back by contrasting their visions of government and putting Hillary in a double-bind of his own devise.

She's been running as the more "experienced" candidate. Most of the experience is associated with her time as First Lady. If she lets the attacks on that record go unanswered, it undermines her main credential. If she answers the charge, then it validates the comparison and opens up the Clinton White House years for scrutiny.

As Greg DeLassus noted in the first comment, that record may not stand up to close examination. It involves a lot of compromises that favored Republican politics and few that benefited a progressive agenda. Lieberman and the DLC is Clinton's legacy, not Howard Dean.

Since Obama's less of an establishment candidate and has been running on a mantra of "change" from the start, this stands to benefit him greatly among people who will vote based on ideology. His progressive credentials have taken some lumps lately and this can only help boost them by way of making him look relatively more progressive than Hillary.

If Hillary's been fighting to get Edwards voters to swing her way based on demographics, this move could pull the ones who care about ideology over to Obama.

jose wrote on January 25, 2008 2:14 PM:

Let's see. Hillary gets smoked like a crack pipe and finishes third in Iowa. The campaign about over, she calls in Bill for help in NH. They whine (and cry) about how unfairly they are beaing treated by the media, etc. They win a small sympathy vote and Edwards splits the change vote enough to prevent Obama from winning.

The Billary campaign has almost NOTHING to to with HRC. It has become about Bill, and Bill all the time. Without him, she would have been cooked after Iowa. I'm sick of living in an Oligarchy, where having a prominent daddy or hubby gives you credentials.

Enough is Enough.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 2:15 PM:

I do not want to relive the 90's or live in the past. We need to move forward. The 90's sucked for the country and as a poster pointed out the 90's gave us the king. What a great legacy mr. bill. The trajectory you put us on was for the country to wind up with the king. Gee, thanks.

savvy wrote on January 25, 2008 2:16 PM:

theWalrus wrote on January 25, 2008 1:59 PM:
. BC should use his charm and charisma to focus on *her* achievements and potential - not his

lol lol, that's the point silly..she has NONE.
Bill is DA MAN she is nothing but the little woman, riding his coat tails and he is bound and determined to carry her over the threshold of the WH door again.

Democrats may just be stupid enough and nostalgic enough for Bill again, but any thinking Democrat would be crazy to put those two back in office.

America needs a fresh start. We need to turn the page.

Southerners may have allegiance to the Clitnons but young folk and the rest of the nation don't!

Hopefully, HRC comes in third in SC.

Pray on it. Pray on her coming in third so we can bust that whole racist pandering myth about the blacks voted for Obama and that is why she lost.

That is not it! Too many whites voted for Obama in NH, IA, and NV.

The Southern whites are breaking for Edwards so it is HER!

Jane wrote on January 25, 2008 2:17 PM:

Sorry this is not related, but Slate just posted Hillary is requesting that Florida and Michigan votes count:

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/Default.aspx

timbnyc wrote on January 25, 2008 2:22 PM:

Cool, if they want a referendum on the Clinton years, they'll get it. And it won't be pretty.

Keith wrote on January 25, 2008 2:25 PM:

Greg D:

I think there was a poll last night that TPM was blaring that showed Obama at 10% of white voters. Not sure what that means outside of South Carolina, but it is what it is. And frankly, this is a function of the Clintons tactics, not Obama's appeal to African-Americans.

Also, here's some interesting thoughts on the Clintons tactics. Clintons supporters will obviously dismiss it, but I think Hilzoy makes some insightful comments.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/lies-and-democr.html

savvy wrote on January 25, 2008 2:26 PM:

@MichaelA
who is the king Bill'slegacy left?

Are you referring to DUBYA!?

hahahahhaha

you are right!

We got Dubya AND Newt and Trent Lott and Bob Barr, and Livingston and MONICA.

We got don't ask don't tell, we got the Patriot Act, no healthcare, it was a total descent into all those Republican ideas.

It has been hell.

Bill can take his whitehaired and loud tie wearing hillbillytalking cigarsmoking skankasstapping race baiting self back to Hope with his Tammy Wynette and live out their days in a log cabin for all I care.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:28 PM:

It's about Bill: "serial deceit."

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 25, 2008 2:30 PM:

A GOP View to Win Opens Up

Peggy Noonan writes:

"There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

"[...] But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?"

"Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage."

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

LJ wrote on January 25, 2008 2:31 PM:

E.J. Dionne weighs in on praise for Ronald Reagan:

It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Washington Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/bill_clinton_credited_reagan_i.html

La Wanda wrote on January 25, 2008 2:35 PM:

Y'all spend too much time on the computer and not enough time at Wal Mart.....get out of your cubicle and maybe you will see how the majority of voters get by. Not on blather, but on inexpensive diapers and reality....Clinton gave a bit of relief, Obama, might...I'm voting for the record..not the possibility, I'm to old... "don't by the hype"...

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 2:35 PM:

What a load of crap from Mark Penn. What Bill Clinton fundamentally changed was he fundamentally corrupted the core principles of the Democratic Party.

cromacho wrote on January 25, 2008 2:36 PM:

Greg DeLassus:
"Obama was precisely right. Bill Clinton did not change the nations trajectory. He was playing Reagan's game by Reagan's rules..."

what hubris! this is what the rest of the world finds laughable about about us. add this one to the column under "american justice," "american family values," and other such chest-thumping inanities. if you consider rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic as trajectory-changing, maybe this argument is somewhat worthwhile. but the american ship of state is not built for trajectory changes -- "fundamental" does not even come close to being applicable. not with 60 votes to break cloture, the veto and most importantly, the paramount role of money in the electoral process. one fundamental change was achieved by civil war, another a century later after prolonged civil unrest. neither one occurred because of government, but inspite of it. remember what lbj told mlk: "now go out there and force me to do it." reagan did not do shit except emit "feel-good" vibes in the wake of the downer carter and our continuing post-vietnam blues. under the circumstances, if not for monica, clinton stands with the teddy roosevelts and harry trumans. they produced results as far as the system allowed them to accomplish. here's reagan's trajectory, if you insist on using the term: turning the u.s. from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation before his first term was over. obama is dumb to even introduce this into the debate.

twirling fartknocker wrote on January 25, 2008 2:39 PM:

Obama's smart. This is exactly where he wanted the discussion to be. Once ClintonCo got over misrepresenting Obama's remarks, they have to deal with its substance, and here we are...

I voted for Clinton the first time when there was hope of real hones-to-goodness change in America, but after Clinton's about-face in Nov 1994 that hope was dead and I voted Green in 1996. Clinton had perhaps just two good years and that was it.

Obama astutely knows many true progressives (as opposed to true democrats) felt massive disappointment in what the 90s might have been. Clinton was horrible on the military, international trade, fair use, privacy, and a host of other issues.

Let's not go back.

"Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow"

pkoso wrote on January 25, 2008 2:39 PM:

by the by, how oh how does this square with hillary's crap about focusing on the future?!

sj wrote on January 25, 2008 2:40 PM:

It was Jimmy Carter who put this country on a different trajectory, not Ronald Reagan. I was there and Reagan's ideas were not especially new or bought into by the public, but after Carter's abject failure they were ready for anything. George W. Bush seems like a changemaker in the same mold -- so we ought to put up the candidate who will give us the most bang for the buck.

Liam wrote on January 25, 2008 2:40 PM:

"President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."

Yes he did. He handed control of Congress to the Republicans, and also, with his Hide the Cigar behavior, handed the White House to Shrub, and you all know what that led to.

martin wrote on January 25, 2008 2:42 PM:

It is incredible overreaching by the Clintonistas to claim Bill's years as transformative.
FDR gave us the New Deal -- subsequent presidencies were variations on a theme (Eisenhower and Nixon included); then, Reagan began rolling back the New Deal and subsequent administrations (Clinton included) were variations on that theme.

Clinton accumulated a fiscal surplus which meant he did NOT spend the money he had on health, education and infrastructure.

Clinton rolled back the New Deal reforms of the banking system by eliminating Glass Steagall --

Jan wrote on January 25, 2008 2:44 PM:

Bill fundamentally changed the Democratic Party into a bunch of craven triangulators afraid of their own shadows and helped ensconce GOP policies as the "responsible ones." Instead of marching off the field Reagan laid out in the 80s, you forced our whole team to play on it. Heckuva job, Bill!

Jessica wrote on January 25, 2008 2:44 PM:

Today Hillar released a staement saying that she is asking her delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Nice, really, nice. Now who seems to be the one grasping here?

She will continue to honor the plege to not campaign in Florida (where she is ahead by name recognition) so that the other candidates will also continue to honor the pledge.

What a piece of work. Is this really the kind of President we want? Just because something is technically legal does not mean it is right - a lesson the Clinton's never learned.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/25/cllnton-makes-shameless-appeal-to-floridians/

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 2:45 PM:

Hillary would have lost both New Hampshire and Nevada if Bill hadn't been acting as her hatchet man. She does not have what it takes to win in the general election. And make no mistake--she will be totally on her own in the general. The Republicans won't run against her. They will start with Bill. And they will DESTROY him. Bill Clinton is not the only hit man who understands the politics of personal destruction. He may be the Karl Rove of the Democratic party, but the Republicans have the REAL Karl Rove. If Bill thinks he can pull this shit against the Republicans, I'd say he's got another think coming. Bill Clinton's filthy strategy may be scoring some hits against a fellow Democrat, but when the dirty tricks squad on the Republican side kicks in, Bill's popularity is gonna drop into the shitter. The Republicans will run their entire campaign on the strategy of ripping the Democratic Party apart. And since the Clintons are doing all of the prep work for them, it's gonna be a piece of cake for the GOP.

Bill Clinton is working to lose this election for the Democrats. The Democratic leadership knows it too. They just don't have any power over him.

doublecola wrote on January 25, 2008 2:49 PM:

Mr. Clinton--how can we miss you if you won't go away?

facemn wrote on January 25, 2008 2:49 PM:

83% of the people on this site http://www.barackobamacentral.com say they will NOT vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. 8% say they will, 7% are undecided.

GHB wrote on January 25, 2008 2:49 PM:

I think the best argument against the legacy of Bill Clinton is the 2000's!

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 2:52 PM:

I am absolutely shocked that a former president would defend his administration's work!

SHOCKED I tell you!!!

Vote for Obama, because you'll get none of that "look what I did" stuff from him, now or after any presidential aspirations he achieves.

Obama would NEVER talk about himself or praise his own accomplishments or skills.

Neither would his supporters.

They are absolutely committed to down-playing Obama's talents, skills, and accomplishments, so much so that they won't even mention his accomplishments, skills, or talents unless you beg them to.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I had a lot of fun with that. Really.

LJ wrote on January 25, 2008 2:52 PM:

So after all of that talk about building a bridge to the 21st century, now we're supposed to tear it down and build a bridge back to the '90's? I guess whether we're supposed to look to the future or to the past depends on what best serves the Clintons at any given moment.

And as long as we're taking a nostalgic trip to the past, can we please stop briefly in October 2002 to fawn over Hillary's support for the Iraq War? And let's get all misty eyed over Hillary's vote for the Patriot Act too.

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

"Peggy Noonan writes '[...] But the Clintons are tearing the party apart.'"

Concern trolling. There is no intention good enough to use as an excuse to quote Peggy Noonan.

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

Do not overlook Hillary's more recent vote for the Kyl/Lieberman: Green Light to Attack Iran, ploy.

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:01 PM:

"Bill only looks good in retrospect when compared to Dubya, but I don't know of anyone who seriously thinks he brought about any fundamental change."

Clinton did bring about fundamental change, namely taking the party exactly away from the excesses of the 60s & 70s of which Mr. Obama speaks. The Democratic brand was not known for balancing budgets and cutting taxes, but that's what Clinton did. Michael A seems to suggest that welfare reform was bad, but the economy added 22 million people to the labor market and allowed welfare recipients a chance at some dignity and self-respect and seen from that view signing that law was a fundamental break with the past and compassionate. The struggle on this site and on the campaign is between those who think the Clintons represent third way centrism and see Obama as embracing a more militant form of liberalism, and those who see Hillary as strong enough to beat the Republicans at their own game. Yet the irony is that Obama’s proposals are timid compared to Hillary’s and he would be much easier for the Republicans to characterize as far-left and radical. Hillary can frame the debate in centrist terms while actually passing liberal legislation – like Lyndon Johnson.

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

Not all Southerners are stupid.

Listen to this voter take it straight to Clinton on how polarizing Hillary is and how the hell is she going to be able to govern after splitting the country and racebaiting.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/bill-clinton-takes-on-the-polarizing-issue/#more-3998

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:06 PM:

Hey not-so-savvy, Hillary didn't racebait. It was the Obama campaign who did. Now he's ahead in SC, so it worked.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:07 PM:

pork sword, 22 million jobs at mcd's. Remember the great sucking sound from south of the border?

Also, I don't know if I would be wanting to compare my candidate to LBJ. What is with you clinton people? It is tooo funny. LBJ is most remembered for freaking vietnam and the deaths of young americans in a horrible war of election based on lies that got us entrenched in it. Remember the gulf of tonkin?

Oh, wait a minute. Maybe you are right. Maybe clinton is just like LBJ. She got us stuck in a war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans based on lies. Wow, you are right, she is just like LBJ.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:07 PM:

I think the nostalgia has worn off and this cannot be a strong strategy for Clinton (HRC). Sure, Bill did a lot of good things... but that was a while ago, and it all got torn apart as soon as Bush took over. So, the 'good times' are a distant memory now that nothing of lasting significance remains of his 8 years in office... hard to make a case for "change" when nothing of lasting significance remains.

Instead, this plays well into Obama's hand: his campaign relies heavily on the idea that we need to change the old way of politics (which includes the Clintons not only for their politics-as-usual mudslinging and misrepresentations, but also simply because the Clintons are a "wedge issue" unto themselves). The change he's promoting isn't so much a new set of policy ideas, it's about changing the way in which the battle of politics is waged; that the politics of division and hatred be replaced with the politics of unity and civility.

Why? What difference would that make?

If one steps back to take a look at the big picture, it becomes quite clear that, for the most part, we're still fighting the same battles we were a generation ago. When one side gains power, they make their own progress. When the pendulum finally swings, as it always does, then the other side has much to gain and little to lose by dismantling everything the other side accomplished and charting a new course of "progress". The pendulum swings again, and the cycle repeats itself.

There are two ways to break the cycle and actually achieve lasting results.

The first way is what I'll call the Rove/Republican strategy. The key element of this strategy is to achieve "permanent" Republican control by disengaging the system from the pendulum swings. How? Rig elections. Corrupt the DoJ and other agencies such that they serve the Republican Party, not the people or country. Stack the courts in their favor. Use the media (e.g. FOX) to dominate the political conversation. Employ every kind of dirty trick from supporting Green Party candidates and dividing the liberal vote, to "Swift Boating" in order to win elections. Illegally stack congressional districts in your favor (like Texas). It's the politics of “win at all costs”. Some have said to me, “Hey that’s politics - anything goes”. Really? The next logical step is assassinations. Is that OK? The key question therefore, is where do we want to draw the line? It is simply a choice we make to say that all of the aforementioned dirty tricks are acceptable, but assassination isn’t.

Enter Obama, with a different approach for achieving lasting results. His approach is to make the pendulum irrelevant by uniting people behind common goals and being collaborative in forming policy solutions. In an ultra-polarized system like we have now, nothing can last. But, if one can lead in a way that creates a broad base of support (e.g., MLK and the civil rights movement) then fundamental and lasting change can happen. Certainly, Obama has the oratory skills to lead in this fashion. But, his primary focus is on bringing into politics the ‘nonviolent’ approach, or better said, a collaborative approach, in which everyone can have a seat at the table and all positions and opinions will be considered. The degree to which one is able to get buy-in and support from a diverse group of people and stockholders, is the degree to which an idea will gain lasting support.

So, if the Obama campaign is smart, they’ll be able to draw a contrast between the approach the Clinton’s have, which didn’t produce LASTING results, and the approach he has, which will. Simple.

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

"The degree to which one is able to get buy-in and support from a diverse group of people and stockholders, is the degree to which an idea will gain lasting support."

That should've read "stakeholders" - with an A.

wes2 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:09 PM:

facemn wrote on January 25, 2008 2:49 PM:
83% of the people on this site http://www.barackobamacentral.com say they will NOT vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. 8% say they will, 7% are undecided.

...proving what, exactly? That some 400 visitors to Obama's site are 1) living in blue states, 2) independents who don't give a rat's ass about Obama's policies but think he's neat, or 3) complete morons?

I'm no fan of Hillary's, but this bragging about not voting for her in the general is both infantile and unconvincing.

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

Some of you must have been very young when Clinton was president. Let me refresh your memories:
1.) Clinton most certainly did come into office with some freshness and welcome change. His whole campaign was about it and many of us were delighted that part of that included the fact that Hillary was not going to be a typical first lady. The Clintons were all about undoing the Reagan-Bush leagacy but doing it by helping people be contributors in their own success.
2.) Clinton got a tax bill passed, just barely, that reversed many of the GOP tax bonanzas for the wealthy.
3.) Newt Gingrich manipulated language and lead his Movement Conservatives to victory in 1994.
4.) For some reason, Clinton couldn't turn Gingrich and his gang into liberals. It just wasn't happening. The GOP congress did really helpful things like shut down the government over a budget dispute and conduct endless hearings about billing records, bad real-estate deals and blue dresses.
5.) For some reason, the GOP congress kept insisting on proposing idiotic, mean-spirited, wedgie bills that were detrimental to the American people.
6.) For some reason, Bill Clinton tried to outflank them to take the razors out of these nasty legislative apples.
7.) For some stupid reason, there are a lot of 30 something progressives running around the web blaming Clinton for not having committed harihari because he was unable to make a bunch of GOP maniacs act like decent human beings.

WHAT is it exactly you think he should have done in the 90's? I mean, given the conditions that he was presented with that were imposed on him by the duped American public? How do you think he should have behaved differently?

You know, he was no Abe Lincoln or FDR but his opportunities to change things were stimied by his own population who listened to the Gingrichs and Limbaughs and kept sending Republicans back to Congress. How come you're not turning your ire on the people who actually screwed things up? Is it just easier to beat up on your own side? Is that effective?

Get off your high horses, people.

'gits

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

In search of common ground.

As others have noticed, Senator Obama is not the first candidate to run on a platform of hope. In 1988, Jesse Jackson entered the Democratic primaries viewed as a great orator. He contends in his book Keep Hope Alive: Jesse Jackson's 1988 Campaign that he "finished the campaign recognized by many as the great idea generator. More than any presidential campaigner in recent memory, and perhaps ever, Jackson laid out a substantive, coherent set of progressive proposals for wrestling with our economic troubles, rejuvenating our communities, strengthening our families and confronting the new, post-Cold War realities in the international arena."

"Many Democrats, including some of the potential Democratic presidential candidates, had been intimidated enough by Ronald Reagan’s economic policies that they were trying to imitate him," Jackson writes. Jackson resisted all the way. He continuously fought "Reagan’s economic policies that so dramatically favored the rich and big business over the poor, the middle class and small businesses."

Jackson "repeatedly attacked the administration’s 'Robin Hood in reverse' tax policies. He pounded the Reagan-Bush administration for doubling the military budget in peacetime while simultaneously declaring a war on the poor by cutting back on their food, education, health care and housing."

Jackson "relentlessly exposed the Reagan administration for its “race conscious” policies, actions and decisions which were consciously designed to hurt people of color, as well as poor people."

Jackson stood by traditional Democratic Party principles and, on Super Tuesday in 1988, Jesse Jackson won 91% of the African American vote. He won 37% of the Liberal vote, 35% of the Labor vote, 30% of the women's vote, and 21% of the Hispanic vote. He carried the 18-29, the 30-44 and the 45-59 age brackets, and he carried voters who had voted the Democratic ticket in 1984, collecting 39% of their votes and also voters who were voting in a primary for the first time, collecting 31% of those important votes.

In 1988, Jesse Jackson won Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia. He proved that White America would vote for an African-American in numbers no one believed possible.

Michael Dukakis went on to win the Democratic nomination, only to lose to George H.W. Bush in the general election. According to Jackson, Dukakis lost because he "failed to clearly identify the Democratic constituency and to adopt a clear ideology and a compelling message those voters could identify with." At no time, Mr. Jackson says, did Mr. Dukakis "systematically critique how the economy had been undermined by Reagan-Bush, how the rich and corporations had been indulged, the middle-class squeezed and the poor pummeled, or identify what Dukakis would do to change this."

That would remain for William Jefferson Clinton to do.

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

So Josh, are you still claiming to be neutral?

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

What Mark Penn failed to mention is that international relations aren't the only relations that Bill Clinton changed. He also had quite an impact on "sexual relations" right here at home.

Honestly, do the Clintons want to go down the path of making this a referendum on the 1990s? Because if Obama ever decided to hit back with charges of ethics and scandals, he'll win that argument hands down.

I'm really starting to resent the Clinton 2008 campaign because they've been so repugnant that they're starting to taint my viewpoint on what was a pretty decent Clinton presidency.

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

SHORTER MARK PENN:

If it weren't for the Clinton presidency in the 90s, I wouldn't be a multimillionaire today.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:17 PM:

The only person race-baiting is Obama and his supporters through their tendentious interpretations of Clintons' statements.

BTW, Clinton (Bill) realized that neo-progressive orthodoxy would be as destructive to the country as neo-con orthodoxy and he took the best principles from each side of the aisle and forged a middle ground that ensured economic and foreign policy success that while not perfect was heads and tails above anything ever accomplished by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and, now, Bush 43.

But that must all be swept under the rug in neo-progressives' world of koolaid-drinking zealotry in which anything one iota less than lockstep agreement with their values and goals is characterized as evil personified, much like the neo-cons supporting Bush have adopted a politics as religion attitude that demands absolute and unquestioning fealty to der Führer of the day, which in the case of neo-progressives, is Obama.

It is hardly surprising then that Obama is trying to divide and conquer the races.

Maybe he can choose Bobby Seale as his running mate.

Badger wrote on January 25, 2008 3:18 PM:

You know, I was reading TPM just now and caught Josh's rant about Mark Penn and figured he must have said something really terrible. So I come here and all he said was that Bill Clinton did fundamentally change the direction of the country? Bob Somerby is right. Josh is a useless tool. Obviously, it's possible to disagree with Penn but again, what was so terrible about him saying it?

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:19 PM:

LBJ made a huge mistake in Vietnam--just like George W. Bush did in Iraq, no doubt. Hillary voted to force inspectors back into Iraq. Ted Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Does that make him responsible for Vietnam? Don't be myopic. Johnson’s misleading the country about Vietnam was a huge blunder as was Bush misleading the country about Iraq. But LBJ was a legislative genius:

*Medicaid
*Medicare
*Head Start
*1964 Civil Rights Act
*1965 Civil Rights Act
*Wilderness Act
*Economic Opportunity Act
*Higher Education Act of 1965
*Social Security Act
*Age Discrimination in Employment
*Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
*Bilingual Education Act
*Fair housing

You think another president could have succeeded with this agenda? If you think that I have a piece of property in Chicago to sell you.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 3:20 PM:

Hey pork sword: the OBAMA campaign is doing the race baiting? Gee, I thought it was Bubba who said this week: "I think it would be just as much of a change, and some people think more, to have the first woman president as to have the first African-American president."

Yeah, folks, just forget about the issues. The real issue in this campaign is whether a black man is better than a woman. We're talking about REAL change here, folks. White woman versus negro. Not that phony kind of social and political change that the African-American boy (bless his nappy little head) keeps yammering on about.

Bill Clinton is a complete and utter phony, and the reason Hillary hasn't been doing any race-baiting is because Bill is doing it for her.

cromacho wrote on January 25, 2008 3:22 PM:

Mark F:
"Hillary would have lost both New Hampshire and Nevada if Bill hadn't been acting as her hatchet man."

Hate to shake the obamaiacs out of their trance, but if you still didn't decipher the dynamics involved in NH and NV, which were won in defiance of all polling, your idol will soon be the second coming of julian bond. bill has very little to do with it.

NV gave us a glimpse of what will be clearer as we get to CA, TX, FL and NY. the largest union, predominantly latino, endorsed obama, but hillary won latinos by nearly 3-to-1. this, inspite of that costly spanish-language ad calling hrh "shameless." latinos see blacks as frontliners in immigrant-bashing; blacks see latinos as unfair competition for jobs. barack's predicament is compounded by the continuing tone of the republican debate, which reduces a complex issue to sound bites of who's toughest and how high the fence should be. this will continue because they don't give a shit about the latino vote anyway.

so you have a large subset of the democratic constituency--larger than the black vote--highly agitated, feeling as if the whole neighborhood is talking about how messy and ugly their house is. for this and other complex factors, obama cannot turn out the latino vote the way hillary can. and if you doubt this, just ask the culinary workers union leaders who strong-armed their rank and file to no avail. with obama vs. mccain, even CA would be in play whereas it would be a reliable firewall for hillary.

the other dynamic is involved in NH. elections defy most logic; in fact post-election analysis boil down to emotionally-driven moments: nixon's 5 o'clock shadow, the girl with a daisy and the mushroom cloud, dukakis in a tank, willie horton, "there you go again," "you're no jack kennedy, kerry windsurfing, gore's condescending sighs.

in '08 it will be like slow-drip. hrh is now winning among older women, married women and Catholics -- logically the ranks of her haters, and this is instructive. shirley chisholm, the eminent black congresswoman and one of the first women to run for president, said "in my lifetime, i have been marginalized more by gender than by race." as we go through this campaign, more and more women will identify with her. any woman who has ever been waved off by her husband in kitchen table arguments, or experienced patronizing put-downs at the office, they will begin to say, "yeah, i've been there, and felt that." this shared experience will gradually trump ideological bias. remember men did not notice obama's "most inhumane moment" in the NH debate, but women sure did. and on top of this--the limbaugh echo machine folks constantly mocking her as "her thighness"--imagine how many republican women will defy their spouses in the privacy of the voting booth on election day.

my bold prediction, she wins at least 55% of an unprecedented turnout of women. i never thought i'd say this, but i'm beginning to think she is unbeatable.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:23 PM:

Michael A: "She got us stuck in a war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans based on lies. Wow, you are right, she is just like LBJ."

All by her little old self, she passed and misimplemented the AUMF!?

Wow!

If I'd known she was that powerful, I would have supported her as my first choice, instead of my grudging second choice.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 3:23 PM:

"So Josh, are you still claiming to be neutral?"

Can't speak for whether Josh is neutral, but I am now after reading the paranoid and ludicrous crap coming from commenters on both sides of the argument. It's like everyone is 'stupid-baiting.'

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

wes2: "I'm no fan of Hillary's, but this bragging about not voting for her in the general is both infantile and unconvincing."

Not convincing?

These are the same folks that abandoned Gore for Nader.

Zealotry knows no logic or reason and it has no conscience.

Just ask the Regent U folks in the Bush administration.

You'll find the same attitude and answers from them that you will find in Obama supporters.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:27 PM:

Badger - you actually don't get what Josh's comment about Penn was about. It has nothing, NOTHING, to do wth this particular statement. It has to do with a number of other things, including, but not limited to the fact that somehow Penn has managed to continue to run high-profile campaigns and lose a lot of 'em for the Dems.

Sometimes, it is best to say nothng if you don't know what you're talking about.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:28 PM:

Ok, pork sword, that's an impressive list about what LBJ accomplished. Uh, what is the clintons' record of legislative accomplishments? NOTHING.

But we do know that she falls in nicely with the vietnam analogy. By the way, I wonder if Kennedy had the intel summarized for him that the gulf of tonkin incident was a lie, like clinton had summarized for her in a gd NIE that the basis for the iraq war was built on lies. AND, that there was only one gd freaking gd "defector" in germany that the whole house of lies was built on. ONE GD "DEFECTOR" IN GERMANY and we went to war and invaded a country and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans pretty much based on that one bozo's gd statements that the german intel people thought were not credible. As I recall freaking germany wouldn't vote to go to war and the basis for war by the administration was based on somebody in their intel agency's custody?????? It is freaking unbelievable and tragic. I still can't believe it.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 3:29 PM:

I'm sorry, cromacho. I'm afraid your post is well over my 250-words-or-less post reading limit. (I'm currently on a "keep it brief and get to the point" campaign to save the world from wordy, boring posts.) But I'm sure you've made a very powerful and convincing argument for whatever it was you said.

kozmik wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:

We're going to see pundits and politicians fall into two camps from this: the Status Quo and those For Change.

The Status Quo includes all the people who went along with the DLC/Third Way to push Reaganomics on a Democratic platform. They have a tremendous amount of power and wealth and are responsible for the worst economic policies since the Gilded Age and Great Depression. Robert Rubin is the most prominent example, having been secretary of the treasury in both Clinton terms, formerly of Goldman Sachs, he became the Chairman of Citigroup after leaving office. Big proponent of Supply Side and "liberalization" such as NAFTA and deregulation. All the major media corporations are also part of it, having benefited tremendously from media deregulation and consolidation also passed under Clinton.

Those For Change includes everyone sick of it, most prominently Progressives and those who've been shut out of our national politics, especially economics, for the last 30+ years. Typically these are middle class and sick of supply side economics and economic "liberalization" which is only profitable to Wall Street. It also includes many highly educated, working professionals (as opposed to the investor class) who are more concerned with their communities and the world they're passing on to their children, than getting rich overnight in the market.

to wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:

The good news is we are past the pretense that Hillary is the Clinton who is running for president.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 25, 2008 3:30 PM:

Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to be elected
to two terms as President since FDR. He left
office as the most popular living president.
His current popularity ratings are in the 60s for the nation
as a whole and in the 90s for Democrats.

Except for diehard Republicans and diehard lefties
how can't it help Hillary to remind people
of the Clinton Presidency?

The effort to gin up phony charges and statements
to generate greater conflict than really exists
shows how powerful the Clinton legacy is among ordinary
Americans, not ideologues.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 3:33 PM:

"The good news is we are past the pretense that Hillary is the Clinton who is running for president."

HAR!!! Now if we could somehow get her Clintbots to look clearly at how they're being bamboozled by this pair of con artists...

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:34 PM:

Mark F: "Gee, I thought it was Bubba who said this week:"

Another example of the type of Obama supporters' tendentious interpretations of Clintons' remarks that constitute race-baiting in its finest (and slimiest) form.

Thanks for proving our point that it is Obama and his supporters who are egging on race-dividing false interpretations so they can obtain a voting advantage among certain groups of blacks in some early primaries in the hopes of gaining sufficient momentum to overcome Clinton's lead in the national polls.

Thanks for proving how low you will stoop and how Obama and his campaign are not the thing of glory and good that his supporters portray it to be.

Well done!

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

From goldberry:

WHAT is it exactly you think he should have done in the 90's? I mean, given the conditions that he was presented with that were imposed on him by the duped American public? How do you think he should have behaved differently?

But isn't that really Obama's whole point - that given the circumstances he was faced with, Clinton ultimately failed to find a way to overcome, or even to seriously damage, those whose legacy is the disaster we now face? Obama credits some of his individual accomplishments but points to this failure as singularly relevant.

cromacho wrote on January 25, 2008 3:36 PM:

Mark F:
ok. for your 6-sec-sound-byte attn span, ur post = hubris!

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:36 PM:

Michael A: "Ok, pork sword, that's an impressive list about what LBJ accomplished. Uh, what is the clintons' record of legislative accomplishments? NOTHING."

Hmmmm, LBJ accomplished those things as president.

Hillary hasn't yet been president.

What about that don't you get, moron?

Logic, history, and reading comprehension too tough for Obama supporters?

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:36 PM:

Pork Sword - If you're suggesting that HRC has the ability to pass legislation in the way LBJ did, then it's time to put down the crack pipe and spend a few moths in rehab.

LBJ was a MASTER legislator BEFORE entering the White House. He could make his sworn enemies vote with him on legislation. Do you think HRC can do that??? She was never a powerful force in the enate, and the Republicans will have NOTHING to gain by working with her, if she becomes president. NOTHING.

And NOTHING is what will get done if she becomes president.

Threegoal wrote on January 25, 2008 3:36 PM:

When I look at Clinton's terms I see it as the only eight years out a 28 year Republican reign starting with Reagan. I look at the sum total of change during that time, particularly in how the top did relative to the middle and bottom, and I see Clinton's time as at best a tactical braking action against negative strategic trends that become evident when you compare where the country is in 2008 to where it was in 1980.

The 2008 election should be about starting a longer period where we strategically change what went bad over the past 28 years, and I don't think anyone stuck in the 90s, such as the HRC/WJC dyad, or their spokesmen such as Mark Penn, are up to what needs to be done.

That's why we need Obama.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:38 PM:

Michael A: "By the way, I wonder if Kennedy had the intel summarized for him that the gulf of tonkin incident was a lie . . ."

Kennedy was dead when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, he'd been dead for months, and he was still dead when the intel about it was given to President Johnson.

You are such an ignorant maroon.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:39 PM:

Maybe you should read the statement again texie. I said clintons, not clinton. Reading comprehension too tough for you? We are voting for a third term for the clintons aren't we? Two for the price of one and all that stuff. Mr. bill is out there pimping his 22 million jobs at mcdonalds created during the 90's, right.

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

Daniel A. Greenbaum - Read my first post and you'll know why.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:40 PM:

Texi, Ted kennedy, ted kennedy, not JFK. I was responding to the porker's point. Man, you really are too funny.

savvy wrote on January 25, 2008 3:41 PM:

It is time to rewatch this.

It is more meaningful than it was in August.

America.

Wake.

UP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:41 PM:

BTW, Michael A, thanks for utterly undermining your credibility on history or anything remotely resembling logic, reason, and reasonableness, with your idiotic and classic Kennedy-Gulf of Tonkin rant.

No wonder you can't keep up with what really happened with regard to Iraq, intel on Iraq, and the AUMF.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:43 PM:

TexModDem - Obama has nothing to gain by becoming the candidate of 'the angry black man". Any attempt to push things in a racial direction is not to his advantage. Put on your common-sense hat and think about it.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:43 PM:

DaddyD: "She was never a powerful force in the enate . . ."

I don't think LBJ was ever a powerful voice in the "enate" either, but I could be mistaken.

Then again, I don't live in a Peter Pan world where Kennedy was given Gulf of Tonkin intel.

rbe1 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:43 PM:

Wow ! During Clinton's second administration, his approval ratings were generally double to triple Dubya's. So I guess the people spilling their guts in this blog represent the 20-30 % of the voters who hated the Clintons at that time. Either you are republicans, or less than 25 years old, or hypocrites.

Brad wrote on January 25, 2008 3:44 PM:

If Bill had really changed the trajectory of America, then why were all his achievements (sans NAFTA) so easily reversed by the next administration?

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:45 PM:

Here you go texie, in case you missed it,

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:19 PM:
LBJ made a huge mistake in Vietnam--just like George W. Bush did in Iraq, no doubt. Hillary voted to force inspectors back into Iraq. Ted Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Does that make him responsible for Vietnam? Don't be myopic. Johnson’s misleading the country about Vietnam was a huge blunder as was Bush misleading the country about Iraq. But LBJ was a legislative genius:

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

Michael A: "I was responding to the porker's point."

There is no "porker" posting on this thread.

What you smokin' man?!

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

savvy - That was fun. Thanks.

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

I will eat a fresh, steaming pile of dog shit before I cast a vote for HRC.

After NAFTA? DOMA? Don't Ask/Don't Tell? Welfare Reform? the DotCom bust? Losing Congress during the midterms, a loss that reverberated for 15 years?

Not this guy.

Charlie wrote on January 25, 2008 3:47 PM:

I could care less what president Clinton did in the 90's. Like most you, my favorable opinion of Bill is now not so favorable. Of course, that doesn't change what he did while in office, but what he did while in office has absolutely no bearing on what she may do if elected. He shouldn't be able to sell Hillary based on things he did, but he is...and it's apparently working. Early on, Clinton said that she would not have Bill out there, that she would be the face the voters saw, and that she was going to do this thing on her own...I think that she's seen that she cannot do it on her own and that that explains why Bill is now involved and also why the smearing has begun, it's the only way to win! Winning is the only thing that matters, right Mr. and Mrs. Clinton? And it doesn't matter if I sell drugs to pay my bills, I paid my bills and that's all that matters, right?

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:48 PM:

Hey Mark F.

You said "Bill Clinton is a complete and utter phony, and the reason Hillary hasn't been doing any race-baiting is because Bill is doing it for her."

If the Clinton campaign is doing race-baiting, then it sure has backfired. Hillary is now behind in SC after leading for a year. A previous poster is right, the Obama campaign released their race-baiting memo after the loss in NH becaue they knew that SC is their Alamo. Calling Bill Clinton a racist is like calling Bill Gates poor, it just doesn't ring true.

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

mark f. belongs to the tribe of tucker carlson, ralph reed, georgie stephanopoulus and ryan seacrest (perhaps also larry craig). they hate bill like forever for committing the unforgivable. he picked monica instead of them.

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

Michael A: "Here you go texie, in case you missed it . . ."

I didn't miss anything Michael A(hole).

I'm simply using the same interpretative methods with you that you, Obama, and his other supporters use with Clintons' statements.

If you don't like it, you can blow Clinton like Monica.

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

rbel

No, you misunderstand. I was a big (Bill) Clinton fan in the 1990s. Times and circumstances change. As such, so do my opinions.

Still like Bill - or at least, I liked his presidency. But his wife, or the campaign Bill is running on her behalf? Not so much.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 3:49 PM:

It's funny texie, you dance all over the place to attack me and you failed. However, you ignore the critical points about the NIE and what it contained. Typical clintonian trailer trashing. Ignore the point, divert, lie and distort.

DemUnity08 wrote on January 25, 2008 3:50 PM:

brendancalling:

"I will eat a fresh, steaming pile of dog shit before I cast a vote for HRC."

Lovely. So would you vote against HRC if the Democratic ticket were Clinton/Obama?

Seriously. I want to know if the depths of your hatred extend to voting against Obama himself if he is on the ticket as vp.

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

TexModDem - Grow up and get over typos. I also don't live in a Peter Pan world where Kennedy was given Gulf of Tonkin intel... so you don't have to associate me with someone else's statement.

Since you admit not knowing much about LBJ's legislative prowess, here's your history lesson:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch4.html

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 3:53 PM:

rbe1 - Or it just took a lot longer for those folks to wake up and smell the deceptions.

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:53 PM:

mabini -- Keep it up! LMOA and rolling on the floor!

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 3:53 PM:

brendancalling: "I will eat a fresh, steaming pile of dog shit before I cast a vote for HRC."

Hope you enjoy your meal.

I on the other hand will eat a regular meal and then simply not vote for Obama.

Indeed, if he's running against McCain or Romney, I'll vote for them out of spite and then Obama and his supporters can lap up that steaming pile of dog poo you so crave.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 3:54 PM:

brendancalling:

"I will eat a fresh, steaming pile of dog shit before I cast a vote for HRC."

So, if we nominate her, can we count on you doing that?

And some say there is no joy in voting for Hillary!

c wrote on January 25, 2008 3:56 PM:

Bill Clinton did, to his credit, appoint grownups to major posts. I think in the end it was better to do NAFTA than not to do it, and sure, his fiscal policy now looks pretty good. Changed international relations ... he looks like a genius compared to the current crew, but I'm having difficulties coming up with major achievements.

But sure, as center-right Democrats go you could do a lot worse, and I'll hold my nose and vote for his wife in November if I have to.

BUT people have forgotten that he was a political disaster for the Democratic party.

--His election in 1992 produced no Senate pickups and a loss of nine seats in the House.

--1994 was one of the party's greatest debacles ever, with a loss of 54 House seats and hence loss of the House, which the party had controlled since FDR. (People seem to forget that HRC's bungled health care planning played a large role there.)

1994 also marked the loss of eight senate seats and control; two more Senate seats were lost in 1996 pushing Democrats down to 45.

Check out the numbers for yourself. The party is only now crawling out of the enormous electoral hole that the Clintons got us into in the 1990s.

This is the point: We are dealing with a pair of supremely self-interested politicians. They will do what they need to to build their own power. But don't expect them to help anyone else on the ticket or in the party.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=274075

Dan wrote on January 25, 2008 3:57 PM:

DemUnity08

I would swallow hard and probably vote for Clinton/Obama. But I would think long and hard about just staying home instead.

Why? Because if Obama signs on as her VP, he turns his back on everything he's stood for in this campaign. You can't rail against "politics as usual" and then join her campaign. It's a betrayal of everything he's spent months arguing against.

One thing I can say with certainty: if (when?) Clinton beats out Obama for the Democratic nomination, she will need him as VP a lot worse than he will need her.

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 3:57 PM:

I'm a giving person. When Hillary is elected, I will donate a second helping to brendancalling's meal....

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

Michael A(hole): "It's funny texie, you dance all over the place to attack me and you failed. However, you ignore the critical points about the NIE and what it contained. Typical clintonian trailer trashing. Ignore the point, divert, lie and distort."

My only point, ever, has been what liars and hypocrites Obama and his supporters are and to give you all exactly what you deserve in return for your misogynistic, race-baiting, mendacious, name-calling, and inane attacks on Clinton and her supporters and defenders.

Which is why Obama is the Centerpiece-without-a-table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Candidate of choice for the arrogant, self-righteous, and criminally nutty koolaid drinking stooges who fawn all over him.

Pork Sword wrote on January 25, 2008 4:01 PM:

DaddyD, thanks for posting that essay by Bill D. Moyers. Beautiful tribute to LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:01 PM:

Pork Sword -

"If the Clinton campaign is doing race-baiting, then it sure has backfired."

No, actually, it is working. She's closing the wide gap that had opened. Read the headlines; Obama is losing white support. (He's also gaining black support, but that's not an advantage if yuo lose white support.) As I said earlier, the race baiting is not to Obam's advantage because he could just become the "lack candidate" instead of a candidate for everyone.

Also:

"Calling Bill Clinton a racist is like calling Bill Gates poor, it just doesn't ring true."

Maybe someone here is calling him a racist, but the Obama camp did not. The only question here is if the Clinton camp is manupulating racial tensions in order to try and gain politial advantage. Big distinction. But both BAD.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 4:02 PM:

mabini: Actually, the reason I hate Bill Clinton is because of his slaughter of those innocent civilians in the Sudan. I hate him because he handed the National Forests over to the logging companies when he outlawed the building of roads but allowed bulldozing and helicopter removal and "forest health" cutting. I hate him because he didn't have the spine to protect Tongass. I hate him because he's a liar, a hypocrite, a Republicrat and an embarrassment to the entire Democratic Party. I hate him because he didn't inhale and he didn't have sex with that woman and now he's using his lies to try to personally destroy one of the best and brightest young politicians in generations.

So it's really not the same as why Tucker Carlson hates him. I hate Tucker too.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:04 PM:

Michael A(hole): "It's funny texie, you dance all over the place to attack me and you failed."

I failed to attack?

Did Bush fail to attack Iraq?

Under your standards, apparently so, which means all this stuff about the AUMF is moot anyway.

LOL!

Dan: "Because if Obama signs on as her VP, he turns his back on everything he's stood for in this campaign."

This is so, so funny.

Obama has already turned his back on everything he's [supposedly] stood for in this campaign and he did so from the moment of the "Clinton (D-Punjab)" dirty-trick, if not before.

As a zealot, you just can't see it. The koolaid you're drinking is interfering with your ability to think.

Get some ganja instead, eh!

LJ wrote on January 25, 2008 4:05 PM:

TexModDem:

Primal screams make lousy blog comments.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:06 PM:

DaddyD: "She's closing the wide gap that had opened."

What wide gap?

Obama has been behind in national polls all along and in SC his lead has increased or stayed the same within the margin of error for the past week.

I guess Obama's supporters follow him really close, since they are clearly smokin' the same weed.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:06 PM:

Pork Sword - Thanks porkie. We may disagree on a few things, but unlike some folks who prefer to eat dog feces over voting for HRC, I'll take HRC over anybody with an (R) next to their name - anytime.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 4:07 PM:

Wow, that was a very thoughtful post texie. Gee, its kind of funny whenever I try to talk issues with the clintons' supporters I always get trashed. However, then I am accused of name calling and the various things said in your post which I never do. It almost sounds like a theme of the clintons campaign, race bait name call etc., and then claim that the other person is doing it to play the victim. Wow, my head is spinning. Way to contribute to intelligent dialogue texie. This is what we have to look forward to with a third term of the clintons.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 4:09 PM:

C wrote:

Check out the numbers for yourself. The party is only now crawling out of the enormous electoral hole that the Clintons got us into in the 1990s.

I am very familiar with the number, thank you, and I lived through those times and remember them well.

To blame this all on Clinton is really unfair. Here are some of the circumstances:

1) The Clinton administration went a little too aggressively leftward at the beginning;

2) The Democratic Congress was entrenched and arrogant with numerous heavy handed and corrupt old bosses;

3) The House bank scandal skillfully played by Democrats

4) A masterful congressional campaign led by Gingrich even if some of its tenets were more than a little unrealistic.

The fact that Clinton recovered and adjusted, mostly tamed a very hostile Congress (for awhile anyway), and was reelected easily to a second term instead of becoming a one-term president is a testament to his leadership skills.

By the way, the Democratic party is much stronger electorally than before Clinton took office. Voters have more confidence in Democratic presidents since Clinton than they did before. Nobody used to talk about "Blue" states because there weren't that many reliable Democratic states in presidential elections during the two decades before Clinton.

Robert Poynton wrote on January 25, 2008 4:09 PM:

Bill Clinton is right. His stewardship as President resulted in a prosperous and stable economy, domestic progress that helped us all in our lives, effective international relations, and a successful application of our military.
Presudent Clinton's leadership was good for America.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:10 PM:

LJ: "Primal screams make lousy blog comments."

Then I suggest you go read something other than political blog comments.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 4:11 PM:

Correction to above:

#3 should read "...skillfully played by Repubicans."

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:14 PM:

Michael A(hole): "Wow, my head is spinning."

I KNEW you were smokin' something!

"Gee, its kind of funny whenever I try to talk issues with the clintons' supporters . . ."

Why are you referring to "Clintons' supporters" when responding to me?

You know perfectly well I support Edwards.

See, you simply don't pay attention.

That's why you can't "talk issues" and one of the big reasons why no one wants to "talk issues" with you.

That and the fact that you simply shout inane and dishonest claims about the so-called issues, rather than "talking" about them.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 4:14 PM:

"DemUnity08". That's a great name.

So anyway, Unity08 (and the rest of you suggesting I will be eating shit if Hillary's the nominee).

I said I would eat dog shit **before i ever vote for her**, not if she was the nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, i'm writing my own name in, or perhaps Howdy Doody.

I won't vote for her. I was fooled by her husband in 92, but by 96 the bloom was off the rose.

never again.

Oh, and Unity08?
When you write, "I want to know if the depths of your hatred extend to voting against Obama himself if he is on the ticket as vp" you assume that I like Obama. Where have I called myself an Obama supporter? Can you find that for me?

You can't, because I haven't: I think Obama's a phony, but far less of a phony than HRC.
You also assume I hate Hillary Clinton. I don't: I just think she'd be a bad president, bad enough that I'd eat dog shit before I ever cast a vote for her.

Just because you think an Obama/Clintoon ticket is a great idea, as your funny name links to, doesn't mean that everyone else does too.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:15 PM:

TexModDem -

"Obama has already turned his back on everything he's [supposedly] stood for in this campaign and he did so from the moment of the "Clinton (D-Punjab)" dirty-trick, if not before."

Ohboy. Where to start? Look, Obama rejected the "punjab" incident and apologized. His campaign staff got their asses handed to them for doing that, and they haven't done anything like it since. (Go find one of the recent Newsweek articles and get the full background on the story.)

Both Clinton and Obama have had instances where supporters have said or done really stupid things. It goes with the territory. Only a zealot, like you, would see it as a one-way thing.

The big difference you'll see, if you're willing to take off the Clinton-colored glasses, is that the Clintons keep going for it. They run with false stories or misleading statements even when they know they're doing it. Obama has been MUCH cleaner (not perfect) in this regard.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:19 PM:

BTW, despite numerous entreaties in several threads, no Obama supporter has yet provided a link that shows that Obama has proven his skills at the consensus-building that is at the core of his claim to the throne by getting even one piece of legislation passed on any of the core issues related to the so-called GWOT and the Iraq war or civil liberties that are so dear to the neo-progressives.

Where is Obama's consensus-building legislation to bring the troops home - when did it pass Congress and get signed into law?

Where is Obama's consensus-building legislation to deny Telecom immunity - when did it pass Congress and get signed into law?

Where is Obama's consensus-building legislation to repeal the Patriot Act - when did it pass Congress and get signed into law?

Where is Obama's consensus-building legislation to grant rights to terrorism suspects being held at Gitmo and in secret prisons around the world - when did it pass Congress and get signed into law?

Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . .

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:22 PM:

TexModDem -

" "She's closing the wide gap that had opened."

What wide gap?

Obama has been behind in national polls all along and in SC his lead has increased or stayed the same within the margin of error for the past week."

Maybe they should do a poll to see if Clinton-supporters, like their Master, have no ability to keep things within context.

Anyhow, the point is that Obama has nothing to gain in the long run by pulling the race card. To the degree he's gaining the black vote in SC, he is also losing the white vote. Nationally, this would be a disaster for him: advantage HRC.

Can you deny that?

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:22 PM:

Anonymous: "I said I would eat dog shit before i ever vote for her . . ."

Since you are obviously never going to vote for her and therefore anytime is before you ever vote for her, you can have your steaming dish of caca anytime you like.

Put a little nutmeg on it.

I have it on good authority from "brendacalling" that this takes the edge off.

Paulie wrote on January 25, 2008 4:24 PM:

Josh, you are absolutely right. Penn is an intolerable scumbag and the tragedy about NH is indeed that it saved his job.

As for Bill, he may be an intelligent man but a WISE man knows when to speak and when to shut up. Obviously, bill is not very wise.

theWalrus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:24 PM:

I would love to see Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse. 1] It would drive the rightwing nuts (mass heads exploding)! and 2] he deserves all the blowjobs he can get.

As for HRC, I think she is being underestimated and would make a very savy, intelligent and determined President but she probably wouldn't get a chance to do much - the Repbulicans will begin impeachment hearings against her with the first six months of her Presidency.

mabini wrote on January 25, 2008 4:25 PM:

Mark F:
"I hate him because he handed the National Forests over to the logging companies when he outlawed the building of roads but allowed bulldozing and helicopter removal and "forest health" cutting..."

whew, all this hatred! it does blind us some. consider that clinton turned more land into national parks than all presidents combined since teddy roosevelt. this is the trajectory thing again. the american ship of state is not built for fundamental change, not with 60 votes to overcome cloture, the veto and the paramount role of money in elections. politics is the art of the possible. you have to wrestle with pigs; the pigs like it but you get mud all over you. bill's got all that mud (and that stain), but hey, getting out with a surplus after reagan took us from largest creditor nation to largest debtor nation in one term? not bad.

and i know the haters just hate this: after hundreds of millions spent to dig, distort, contort and probe him to an extent i defy most human beings to survive unscathed, bill clinton is the most sought after, most popular and most admired american in the world. just love it.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:27 PM:

DaddyD: "Look, Obama rejected the "punjab" incident and apologized."

Look, Clinton rejected the "muslim" incident and apologized.

She even fired the culprits.

How many people did Obama fire for the "Punjab" incident?

"Anyhow, the point is that Obama has nothing to gain in the long run by pulling the race card. To the degree he's gaining the black vote in SC, he is also losing the white vote. Nationally, this would be a disaster for him: advantage HRC."

He's like every other politician, such as McCain and Romney, who think they can use such tactics to their early advantage, build momentum within key groups, then switch gears, apologize, or whatever to clear the air and move forward with a different tactic when it is called for.

Just like several of the Republicans have tailored their messages to be more stridently religious during primaries where there are significantly higher numbers of evangelicals and then drop the act when moving on to states with fewer envangelicals.

It's been in all the news about how certain candidates have used different ad campaigns in some states and dropped them in others - haven't you been paying attention? Have you no clue as to how politics works?

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:27 PM:

Robert Poynton - His presidency on the whole was good, but a mixed bag... and with no LASTING results because of the harsh partisan situation that he helped foster.

Good leaders can get people who agree to follow.

Great leaders can get people who disagree to follow.

The Clintons are are of the former, Obama is of the latter.

Paulie wrote on January 25, 2008 4:31 PM:

Hey mabini, you're kidding, right?
Most admired, most sought after? Hang on a minute while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard.
As I said above, he may be intelligent but he will never be WISE!
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.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:32 PM:

DaddyD: "Both Clinton and Obama have had instances where supporters have said or done really stupid things. It goes with the territory. Only a zealot, like you, would see it as a one-way thing."

Since I've never said Clinton supporters haven't done stupid things, I'd have to say only a zealot like you who makes up evidence to suit their point would see it this way.

I have no need to point out Clinton supporters failings, since the press and Obama supporters have done this in spades and beyond, to the point of outright lying and engaging in tendentious interpretations of the statements of those supporters.

And as I've indicated many times, I'm not a Clinton supporter, but an Edwards supporter, and I've seen no evidence in my own comments or in the comments of any other Edwards supporter that even remotely suggests zealotry on his behalf.

Lots of luck with your theory-building though.

The "scientific method" often results in the discarding of many theories before a valid one becomes viable.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:42 PM:

DaddyD: "Great leaders can get people who disagree to follow."

Then it should be no trouble for Obama to get legislation passed NOW to bring the troops home by getting the Republicans and Joe Liarman (yes, I know he's really a Republican, but we must respect his independent designation) to go along.

Same with Telecom immunity.

I hear a lot of hot air about how Obama is going to be this great consensus-builder on everything especially the war, civil liberties, and national security, but I have yet to see any positive proof of said ability.

Maybe that's because it is a "fairy tale" that only koolaid-drinking Peter Pan world clap harder believers (gee that sounds so Bush supporter) actually think is true.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 4:45 PM:

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

"Which is why Obama is the Centerpiece-without-a-table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Candidate of choice for the arrogant, self-righteous, and criminally nutty koolaid drinking stooges who fawn all over him."

Well, OK, as far as that statement goes. But, are you sure that you're not forgetting something? I think you're being too easy on them!!!!

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:47 PM:

TexModDem -

"BTW, despite numerous entreaties in several threads, no Obama supporter has yet provided a link that shows that Obama has proven his skills at the consensus-building that is at the core of his claim to the throne..."

OK, now that I know you're an Edwards fanatic, this gets easier. I could ask the same kind of questions from you... let's look at Edwards track record, and we find he voted for all the key legislation he now opposes. I'll Obama over a proven flip-flopper.

But, you want to know how it is the Obama camp can claim he has an ability to appeal to independents and some moderate Republicans? Do your homework Texie.

Start with poll numbers. Obama consistently receives more support from those groups than Clinton. (Can't say for sure about Edwards... but what's the point of winning over Republicans and Independents if you can't win in your own party? LOL!)

But wait! There's more! If you're willing to look beyond his first term in the Senate, in which, by the way, it is very difficult for rookie Senators to accomplish much, you'll see he had an amazing ability to pull together Republicans in the Illinois Senate. Go back farther, and you find he had a knack for uniting different community groups by leading them away from the usual goals of power consolidation and uniting them behind a common cause or goal.

Texie, you don't know WTF you're talking about at all, do you?

mabini wrote on January 25, 2008 4:55 PM:

Paulie,
you say you're lol, but not one word refutes my contention. just ask al gore how it feels to have a taste of it. he has been applauded (deservedly so) on the world stage lately, but it does not even come close to bill clinton's appeal. heck some people are even citing an obscure french constitutional path to make him run for president of france (i'm not kidding). bill clinton has come to personify the world's amazement at our folly of sanctimony ("american justice," e.g. o.j. simpson, "american family values," don't get us started on this). then there's george bush. walk through belfast and savor what they think of bill clinton; for that matter, ask any european what they feel about clinton. go to south africa and ask them what kind of regard african have of the man. get over your kool aid hangover.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 4:56 PM:

DaddyD wrote:

"But, you want to know how it is the Obama camp can claim he has an ability to appeal to independents and some moderate Republicans? Do your homework Texie.

Start with poll numbers. Obama consistently receives more support from those groups than Clinton."

No. He does not.

That is an absolute myth advanced by people who must not be looking at the polls.

I look at Survey USA state polls all of the time. These polls have crosstabs breaking voters into various categories.

All polls contain some variation but, on the whole, my conclusion, as one who is trained in statistics, is that there is no significant difference in the proportions of Republicans and Independents voting Democratic regardless of whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama. She takes more in those category on some polls; he takes more on others. But, NEITHER, can make a clear claim of advantage based on the totality of the empirical evidence we are seeing.

DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 4:57 PM:

TexModDem -

"Which is why Obama is the Centerpiece-without-a-table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Candidate of choice for the arrogant, self-righteous, and criminally nutty koolaid drinking stooges who fawn all over him."

Why is it most of the people I know personally who suport Edwards - and know several - were also people who voted for Nader... twice. This is no surprise. They both cater to the angry-poulist vote.

While you're out there pointing that finger, you might want to notice the three pointing back at you.

c wrote on January 25, 2008 4:58 PM:

Lombard, even as an *incumbent* in 1996 Clinton got only 49.2% of the popular vote.

I have no idea what "mostly tamed a very hostile Congress" means given the events of his second term which I hardly need spell out. You need to step back and ask how an allegedly masterful politician had such bad relations with Congress that he got himself *impeached* over what he got impeached for... Even Nixon never got to the point of impeachment.

In any case my argument is that the Clintons are very good at helping themselves but not real good at helping anyone else on the ticket. Repeating the obvious fact that Clinton got himself re-elected isn't a counter to that!

Nor does the House banking scandal explain the deep losses in the Senate, and over two successive elections.

TexModDem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:58 PM:

Paulie: "The clintons are EERILY similar to the republicans."

This is a joke, right?

Obama supporters demand sheep-like loyalty - thou shalt not question whether Obama really has the skill to build consensus by demanding that he and his followers (let's just stop the pretense that they are supporters - this is a religion for them) provide examples of this on the most important issues as identified by Obama and his supporters, the war in Iraq, Telecom immunity, im