Now Bill Himself Goes After Obama Over Reagan Interview
The ultimate Hillary surrogate -- Bill himself -- has also teed off on Obama today over his contention in the Reagan interview that the GOP has been the party of ideas:
"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas," Clinton told a crowd in Pahrump this morning. "It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I'm not making this up, folks."
That latter bit is a reference to that mailer that an Obama precinct captain pushed urging that GOPers and indys switch for a day and caucus for Obama. It wasn't the work of the Obama campaign, and they disavowed it.
Bill also said:
"I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess," he said. "So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."
Did I mention that the Clinton camp is pressing this one pretty hard today? More on the validity of this Clinton criticism here.
Separately, it's not surprising that Bill would be personally put off by Obama's interview. While the Hillary campaign is reacting primarily to Obama's contention that the GOP was until recently the "party of ideas," Obama also explicitly said in his original interview that Bill's presidency wasn't transformational, the way Reagan's was.
Comments (176)
Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 5:50 PM:So that's 4 posts of Clinton talking-points today and how many for Obama?
Dave wrote on January 18, 2008 5:54 PM:Where did Bill come up with welfare reform and NAFTA? Hmmmm.......
Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 5:55 PM:Hey, I say post more Clinton stuff. It does them more harm than good.
If you notice the difference between the way Edwards went after Obama on this and the Clintons have, Edwards stuck to the facts and didn't mislead (even if I disagree with him). The Clintons have been very misleading, twisting Obama's words in order to attack him.
I'm hoping these attacks backfire, considering they're a plain misrepresentation of the facts, but I'm guess it won't. More than likely, voters will continue to believe Obama claimed Reagan was a better president than Bill Clinton, simply because the Clinton campaign keep repeating the accusation.
I guess I'll be forced to stomach all this come the general election when Clinton inevitably wins, but it's not going to be easy, and I certainly won't be volunteering in any way for this sort of campaign.
Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 5:56 PM:Bill Clinton is shameless. Always was.
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 18, 2008 5:59 PM:Hillary: Reagan and Poppy Bush were two of my favorite presidents.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
But hey, Bill is right up there with those two in her eyes!
Nice find Geek, Esq.
I was wondering why the Clintons were avoiding his comments on Reagan in favor of these other comments, but it looks like you found the answer.
pacc wrote on January 18, 2008 6:02 PM:Love the Hillary and Bill tag team. O-bomb-A's going down.
along wrote on January 18, 2008 6:02 PM:"...and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I'm not making this up, folks."
Um, YEAH, you are, Bill.
Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 6:03 PM:More than likely, voters will continue to believe Obama claimed Reagan was a better president than Bill Clinton, simply because the Clinton campaign keep repeating the accusation.
I guess I'll be forced to stomach all this come the general election when Clinton inevitably wins
Nevada voters may fall for it, but I am happy to hear my community is waking up to the reality of the so-called First Black President. Black talk radio has been asking listeners for days to ask themselves why they love Bill Clinton so much. When listeners are called to answer for their support of him in terms of what he actually achieved, plenty are coming up short.
I'd love to see a poll of Bill Clinton's approval ratings after the general election.
marcus wrote on January 18, 2008 6:04 PM:Am i wrong to see this a future rhetorical trap for the Clintons?
1. Obama says Repubs have been the party of ideas lately.
2. Clintons say no way you're wrong and list their accomplishments.
3. Obama shows that those were really re-workings of Republican ideas.
Conclusion: The non-transformative nature of the Clintons.
can he be that good?
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 6:04 PM:Three posts, repeating the same lie all three times, and yet you continue to present this as if it's a valid argument from the Clintons.
I appreciate the link to your other statement trying to be fair, but there is no documentary or video evidence suggesting that Obama said what they are saying or intimating what they are saying.
Why don't you pose the question to the Clinton campaign point blank? I mean, you have access to them, why not just follow up with the following: We've reviewed the interview and Obama does not make (or imply) the statement you are now attributing to him. Can you substantiate your claim?
It really can't be that hard.
brewmn wrote on January 18, 2008 6:04 PM:And why isn't there more outrage about a former PRESIDENT being involved in negative campaigning against a feloow Democrat to such an unprecedented degree?
If the rush into Iraq had pissed Bill off half this much, we might not be arguing over who's best to get us out of that quagmire today.
I was anti-Clinton when he was president. I thought he was a terrible champion for liberalism. He only looks good in retrospect compared to the guy who has probably earned the title of worst president ever.
And, after this repeated trashing of the chief challenger to his (oops, I mean his wife's) hopes for an unchallenged walk to the Dem nomination, I absolutely loathe Bill Clinton.
Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 6:06 PM:Hillary: Reagan and Poppy Bush were two of my favorite presidents.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
If this is true, can someone please get this out there!
ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 6:09 PM:""...and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I'm not making this up, folks."
Um, YEAH, you are, Bill."
Uh, no, he's not. Or are precinct captains in the Obama campaign not actually part of the campaign, while anyone who's ever voiced support for Hillary automatically becomes a "surrogate?" If Obama supporters are going to continue to contend that every remark from anyone associated with Hillary's campaign is de facto speaking for the campaign, why is this precinct captain off the hook?
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 6:09 PM:and he still never had sex with that woman.
Slick Willy has lost his slick. He is just plain slimy now.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 6:10 PM:Uh, Greg, how about making it clear that the accusation that Obama said that the Republican ideas were "good" -- just like the accusation that he said they were "better" -- is patently false??
And how about covering this point that we've all been mentioning in the comments. Ahem...
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
-Salmon Press
12/12/07
Endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton
SHE POSTED THIS ON HER OWN WEBSITE!!!
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 18, 2008 6:10 PM:"If this is true, can someone please get this out there!"
That's her campaign website.
I hope Greg or Eric read the comments here.
Whatever wrote on January 18, 2008 6:10 PM:They didn't exactly "disavow" the message. The Obama campaign explicitly said they had problems with the style not the substance of the mailers.
Publicus wrote on January 18, 2008 6:11 PM:ChrisO:
The flyer was made the precinct captain and was neither seen or approved by the campaign. It woud the same as you distributing a poster on behalf of candidate x and me claiming that candidate x said it.
How about this, pull up the flyer and see if this label is missing: Paid for by Obama for America (or something to that effect).
There's a reason they put those disclaimers on the bottom of their correspondence.
timbnyc wrote on January 18, 2008 6:11 PM:Bill's big idea from the 90's? School uniforms. What an intellect! I seem to recall it was the Republican Contract with America that took away a 60-year Democratic majority in the House. Where was Bill then with big ideas to counter that?
Or maybe Bill could just list all of his big ideas - like DOMA, welfare reform, NAFTA...Oh, right, those were all Republican ideas.
Nina wrote on January 18, 2008 6:12 PM:How do people not see that voting for Hillary means this guy getting back in for four more years -- only this time, with less accountability for whatever crap he pulls?
The Clintons make me tired. I came of political age right around the same time that the whole Monica thing blew up, so they have nothing but icky memories for me.
little ole jim wrote on January 18, 2008 6:13 PM:More than likely, voters will continue to believe Obama claimed Reagan was a better president than Bill Clinton, simply because the Clinton campaign keep repeating the accusation.
But didn't Obama actually say that Reagan was a "great" president by those standards? That's an avoidable political mistake.
Reagan was a dufus who mindlessly repeated conservation ideology. He never knew what was going on, but did reap the benefits of a conservative backlash down South.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 6:14 PM:If Hillary gets elected, will Bill get his own office in the White House?
Will it have a big safe? Big enough to hold an intern and an oxygen tank?
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 6:14 PM:LOJ:
No he did not say Reagan was a great president.
along wrote on January 18, 2008 6:15 PM:ChrisO:
I'm not saying he's lying about the flyer or its contents, I'm saying that that neither that flyer nor anything else put out byt the Obama campaign ever suggested that anyone could register Democratic, vote, and then VOTE AGAIN in a Republican Caucus or Primary! That's patently ridiculous.
good job wrote on January 18, 2008 6:16 PM:this link:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
is the best thing I have ever read in the comment section of a blog. This is a great find. Good Job, whoever found that
Greg wrote on January 18, 2008 6:17 PM:I'm not sure what the problem is. We explicitly said -- in the earlier post that we linked to -- that Obama never said that GOP ideas were better than Dem ideas and that he didn't praise any specific GOP ideas.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 6:18 PM:I'm just going to repost my previous post, because it is the same story. Let me just add that all of my criticisms of Hillary are also very applicable (if not more) to Bill. To make matters worse, this kind of pathetic behavior is coming from an ex-president! It is a sad sad time for American politics, that much is sure. Anyway, the repost:
Urg, THIS is why I hate her. I used to defend her even though I didn't agree with some of the more conservative Clinton policies, but who she has shown herself to truly be in this campaign has appalled me. To be so dishonest and manipulative, so callous and disingenuous, all to deceive voters, destroy your opponents, anything to win IN A PRIMARY for Christsake. It disgusts me that she is in our party.
No, there is no way in HELL I will get behind her if she wins the nomination. She disgusts me. I can't stand her, she has been no better (maybe even worse) than a Republican in this campaign, she has stooped to unbelievable lows to destroy anyone who gets in the way of her quest back to the White House, and I'll be damned if I ever give her my vote. I could never vote so such a sleazebag in good conscience. If she wins the nomination I am switching to Independent, because I refuse to be associated with a party whose leader is that dishonest and power hungry. She can try to lie and say that Obama loves Reagan, but she obviously loves Bush/Cheney/Rove, at least when it comes to her tactics and political honesty.
Oh, and for a little perspective, she has stated on the record (it was even published in one of her Iowa endorsements) that Reagan and Bush Sr are among her favorite past presidents. How DARE she try to twist Obama's words and then denounce him when SHE has ACTUALLY praised Reagan!! And lets not forget who she wanted to send out on diplomatic missions to be the "new" face of America: Bush Sr. And also, she campaigned AGAINST LBJ back in the 60s, if she had her way he would have never been elected president. Give me a break, she is disgusting and hypocritical to the extreme. You are a sad sad person Hillary Clinton. You don't belong in our party.
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 18, 2008 6:19 PM:Greg--
I think if you put up that item about Hillary's favorite Presidents, the Obama folks will forgive you.
Let's Tell Drudge wrote on January 18, 2008 6:20 PM:I just submitted the hillaryclinton.com link to Drudge. I recommend other people do the same.
RS wrote on January 18, 2008 6:21 PM:I'm speechless.
This is the most hypocritical political attack I have seen in some time, coming, as it does, from the guy whose very political career was built on the idea that Democrats needed to walk away from the liberalism of the 60s and 70s. The guy whose national political career was premised on co-opting ascendant conservative sentiments re: welfare, crime, and entertainment morality. The guy who embraced free trade, the partial privatization of Social Security, and the war in Iraq. The guy who famously declared that "the era of big government is over."
Really incredible. I suppose in 15 years, when Chelsea is running for President, we'll hear Hillary talking about how experience is entirely irrelevant.
The irony is that the Clintons' politics are trapped in a Reagan political landscape. They worry about appearing weak on crime, so they fly back to Arkansas to watch a retarded guy get the death penalty. They worry about appearing weak on defense, so they support the war in Iraq. They worry about appearing unpatriotic, so they support a flag-burning amendment. And on and on.
Obama's whole point with his Reagan comparison is that he has the willingness and ability to shift the political landscape the way Reagan did and the way Clinton did not.
>>>How do people not see that voting for Hillary means this guy getting back in for four more years -- only this time, with less accountability for whatever crap he pulls?
and a LOT more time on his hands.
Oh, my.....
It's worth thinking about: Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are too gentlemanly (or loyal to the party) to bring up the spectre of what that might lead to. Trust me, the Republicans will not be so restrained.
Bill Clinton wrote on January 18, 2008 6:22 PM:Well, I saw Obama on You tube praise Reagan as a master of time and space. He said Reagan actually crapped gold. Most people do not know this.
When the Challenger exploded, Obama said it was from the piercing eyes of Ronald Reagan. Obama took out a small, well worn Reagan idol out of his pocket. Obama said that when he needs a moral boost, he looks at the small statue and says to himself "What would Ronald Reagan do"?
Obama said that if he was elected President, he would chisel Ronald Reagans image into the side of the White House, and change the name of the country to "Reaganland".
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:30 PM:
Drudge is not going to advertise that link. They want Hillary as the candidate. After all, they are Republicans.
Volum wrote on January 18, 2008 6:30 PM:People are stupid.
And the comments here show just how stupid people can be. The retarded attacks against one of the most popular Presidents in our history, is so vapid and obvious, it makes me want to puke blood.
I'm quite certain that these same people who are using the Limbaugh meme of "slick willy" are the same ones who voted for Clinton, twice.
And really, to be arguing against the notion that Clinton never did anything, on the web, which was fucking FUNDED AND STARTED under Clinton and Gore, is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
joejoejoe wrote on January 18, 2008 6:31 PM:Bitter Bill Clinton, today: "I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess," he said. "So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."
Sunny Bill Clinton, 12/27/05: "You just can't go through life with a great deal of bitterness in your heart over something that happened 15 years ago."
texasdem wrote on January 18, 2008 6:31 PM:Speaking of outrages, I just read this on The Trail. Apparently Clinton's pro-choice supporters are trying to apologize for smearing Obama just before the primary in NH; saying they didn't know they were signing off on a lie. Has this been linked by TPM?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html#more
Michael A wrote on January 18, 2008 6:32 PM:Go away Mr. Bill. I hope he doesn't get invited to the democratic convention. I am sure the republican convention would give him a speaking role due to all the damage that he is causing the democratic party. Pathetic.
Volum wrote on January 18, 2008 6:33 PM:@ Mike Timmons:
Do you have any more tired, Rush Limbaugh Approved™ jokes you want to share with us?
I love when "progressives" use GOP talking points to attack other Democrats.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 6:35 PM:From wikipedia:
On August 6, 1991, CERN, which straddles the border between France and Switzerland, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.
Bill Clinton, elected in 1992.
Who is stupid now?
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 6:36 PM:Greg:
Here's why you are getting crap from us:
It's probably worth pointing out that Obama's quote is saying that the GOP "challenged conventional wisdom" and suggests by default that the Dems didn't have any ideas. At the very least this is a poor choice of words on Obama's part.
This makes it seem like the Clinton's argument, that he was arguing that Republican's had better ideas is actually valid, when he said no such thing. Moreover, in your attempts to be even handed, you are distorting what he said by interjecting the notion that this was a poor choice of words.
For example, you seem to foreclose the idea that he wasn't making a value judgment when he said that they challenged conventional wisdom and merely stating a fact. I came up with one without really trying: tax cuts. Republicans started pushing the notion that tax cuts, without any corresponding cuts in spending, are the elixir that heals all economic wounds. That certainly BUCKED conventional wisdom and was a new idea, but it wasn't a GOOD idea. And he went on to knock the idea in the next sentence.
I know I support Obama and you'll view my comments in that vein, but seriously, the Clintons are lying. Just say it.
savvy wrote on January 18, 2008 6:37 PM:Hahahahaha
Bill is RIGHT on TIME!!!
just like the spider said to the fly...lol
awwwhahaha
Barack has him on a string, watching him make Bill hop to his tune is going to be great.
Obama is going to take down Bill Clinton and the best part is he is going to have Bill do it publically to himself and we are all going to have a bird's eye view.
Get your popcorn folks.
Bill is a LIAR and Obama is going to make him keep telling bigger and bigger LIES.
He is then going to provide a laundry list of how Bill is not telling the truth. Obama said previously that Bill likes to take liberty with the truth and especially with his record. Obama said that he had corrected Bill several times about his stance on the war but the former President seeems to want to continue to take liberties and distort my record.
Now Obama is going to eviserate Bill by using Bill's own administrative record against him by showing how Bill triangulated on policies and domestic issues.
This is going to be great to watch.
hehehehehehe
go obama, go obama, go obama
Obama knows how big Bill's ego is and he is going to use his ego as a noose to hang him with.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
They deserve it for calling him a 'kid'
and a 'symbol' and a 'roll of the dice'
As GWBush would say...Hill and Bill have misunderestimated Obama.
The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it.
Just so everyone remembers what he actually said, and not what the Clintons say he said.
Perhaps Greg you could run their interpretation by the Obama campaign to see if this is what they meant. And while you are at, ask them about your "still later update" on the Hillary post. I'd be interested to see if they agree with your reading, as well.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:40 PM:that link again (hillaryclinton.com!)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Is Bill gonna cry now?
benjoya wrote on January 18, 2008 6:44 PM:i sent tpm screen grabs from that hillary link in case the page mysteriously disappears.
kozmik wrote on January 18, 2008 6:45 PM:Wow the Clintons will say anything. It's pretty obvious they're scared on this issue. They know how bad thier economic record is, and that they've been peddling Reaganomics to Democrats with the DLC for two decades.
What Obama actually said was that Reagan changed the US, which is true. It's often called the "Reagan Revolution." Obama has also made clear he disagrees with supply-side Reaganomics.
Obama also said that Clinton really didn't change the country, but actually followed most of Reagan's economic policies. Which is also true. Examples being NAFTA and all the Deregulation Clinton did, which creating various financial crisis in the 90s, and also led to scandals like ENRON and the 90's tech investment bubble.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:50 PM:I'm so happy that Edwards, Bill Clinton and Hillary are hitting Obama hard today... maybe it will turn things around and help hillary win nevada, south carolina and florida before heading to feb. 5 super tuesday.
Polls show obama is losing ground in nevada and hillary is picking up steam... go hillary:) make us proud.
Bill is right.
And Obama is an empty suit full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Obama gives speeches like a Baptist preacher...YES, we can, Yes, we can.
Is it just me or does Bill Clinton seem to be a lot angrier than he used to be?
I mean, remember when he was out of office and he tried to play the "can't we all jsut get along" card? He talked a lot about not villifying your political opponents. Just say you disagree and state why, was something he said alot.
Whatever happened to THAT Bill Clinton? I like that Bill Clinton better than the angry, "how dare you challenge my wife" politician we're seeing now.
It's very unappealing and it does not make me want him back in the White House
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:53 PM:Obama also mentioned Clinton and Nixon in the same sentence. not so subtle.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 6:56 PM:"Obama gives speeches like a Baptist preacher...YES, we can, Yes, we can."
A white one, right? That is the imagery you were shooting for, correct?
More soft bigotry from the Clinton supporters
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:56 PM:Mike Timmons said:
Who is stupid now?
Most people.
I didn't say that Bill Clinton invented the internet, you dolt. I said it was created and funded with their help.
CERN was important, but built off ideas that RAND, NASA, ARPA and other American organizations were already working on. CERN was basically our gateway to the rest of the planet.
During the mid-90's, Gore and Clinton were instrumental in getting as much funding as possible into the system that Standford (American), the DOD (American) and the NSFSA (American).
From Wiki:
"Funding for Mosaic came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a funding program initiated by then-Senator Al Gore's High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 also known as the Gore Bill .[30]"
The Reagan adminstration transformed, uplifted, our nation. The B.J. Clinton admministration also transformed the nation. It introduced Lewinsky as a verb.
The Clintons are lying.
NamelessFaceless wrote on January 18, 2008 7:01 PM:I just wanted to thank all those who sent in the link where Hillary proclaimed that Reagan (and HW)were among her favorite presidents. I think that gives important perspective on this debate and a certain somebody's sincerity. I hope TPM will make a note of this and it gets the widespread attention it deserves.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 7:02 PM:On your planet, what does the word "created" mean?
NamelessFaceless:
Apparently TPM isn't going to do anything of the sort. They'll keep posting this drivel from the Clintons and linking to their lukewarm debunking of their claims.
The Clintons are liars.
jeanba wrote on January 18, 2008 7:05 PM:Washington Post is reporting that Hillary praises Reagan as one of her favorite presidents, what a bunch of hypocrites. I hope Barack wins NV, i guess I am not surprised seeing people supporting a dynasty, they elected Bush anyway. I hope if Edwards or Obama are not nominees democrats deserve to lose in 08. I will be working hard to see Hillary, if nominee loses in 08.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 7:09 PM:Hillary: Reagan and Poppy Bush were two of my favorite presidents.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Jane, yes you are correct, this is true and I've continually brought this fact up but no one seems to take notice of the UTTER HYPOCRISY of the Clintons. I'll try to lay it out nice and easy for people though.
1) Hillary and Bill attack Obama for making an accurate and intelligent observation about history, politics and change, that I know they both understand, yet they distort it on purpose to misinform voters into thinking Obama meant something he didn't say, just so they can get ahead. This is a GOP tactic through and through, and it is despicable.
2) Bill attacks Obama and attacks Reagan's record, yet as other people have noted, Bill's presidency was basically a lite version of the Reagan Doctrine: See economic policies, NAFTA, deregulation, "welfare reform", etc.
3) Hillary is on record as having said that Reagan and Bush Sr are on her list of favorite presidents of all time.
So to recap, the Clintons are lashing out at Obama, for something he didn't say, while Hillary has said something worse (and true) altogether when she listed Reagan and Bush Sr as FAVORITE PRESIDENTS, and while Bill was basically Reagan-Bush lite. WHY IS THE MEDIA (or even TPM) NOT PICKING UP ON THIS HYPOCRISY???!!!!!!!!!!!
And on the LBJ vs MLK thing, Hillary actively campaigned AGAINST LBJ in the 60s, if she had her way LBJ would have never been elected! She supported the racist Republican Barry Goldwater! Yet she praises LBJ and says he was more important to the civil rights movement than MLK! HYPOCRITE!!!
Seriously people, we need to spread the word about these things!
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 7:10 PM:Life is tuff for the Clintons, as they stroll through their fields of turdblossoms. This is stupid folks!!!
DonnaG wrote on January 18, 2008 7:12 PM:I said a lot of months ago that Bill Clinton would damage his own legacy and popularity. It is sad to watch Bill publically twist and lie.
I guess some of the Clinton White House papers have been released, too....a couple sets of memos released demonstrate that early in the Bill Clinton presidency, there was a least indications of the Clinton camp entertaining the use of the politics of personal distruction against critics of HillaryCare.
Why do I doubt that such will get aired until too late for important primaries? Maybe because I have noticed a patten even here at EC---it is Friday night and whatever slant needs to stay up all weekend in the 'important news', whether postings or polls, will have a finger on the scale to, er, mostly keep front and center the Clinton messages.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 7:14 PM:Hillary loved Reagan. She was also a Goldwater girl.
From the New York Times:
"She came to Wellesley as an 18-year-old Republican, a copy of Barry Goldwater’s right-wing treatise, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” on the shelf of her freshman dorm room."
So, at least we know what her conscience is.
c wrote on January 18, 2008 7:21 PM:RS has it right. I thought Obama's remarks about Reagan were carefully qualified and smart, but if the Edwards camp objects I can respect where they're coming from. But Bill Clinton, the triangulator, the guy who flew home during his first campaign to make sure a retarded guy got executed ... this is not someone in a moral position to criticize a fellow Democrat for tacking toward the center.
What's clearly gotten under his skin is Obama's unfavorable comparison of his political effectiveness with Reagan's. We forget that Clinton won only pluralities of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, a bare 43% in 1992.
Christopher Morris wrote on January 18, 2008 7:24 PM:This takes me back, way back, to the 1992 primaries, when I was too young to vote but my parents, my friends' parents, my teachers, my neighbors -- EVERYONE I knew was voting for either Tsongas or Jerry Brown. This was lower-Bethesda, Ward 3 DC. NOBODY liked Clinton -- in fact, nobody could stand him. Too southern, too shallow, too obviously full of crap.
Of course by November everyone voted for him, because what choice was there? I don't know anyone who's in the mood to do that again. If Hillary thinks there's still a mass of voters out there who'll automatically vote for her because she's the "Democrat," she's going to lose.
john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 7:26 PM:And who was it that was sniffing about MoDo and "Billary"
Oh yeah
Greg Sargent
Democrats need to retire the Clintons before the US voters do
Martin wrote on January 18, 2008 7:38 PM:God, Bill wants back in that White House badly, doesn't he.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 7:44 PM:Triangulation While Intoxicated
Billary Clintons' Favorite Presidents:....Ronald Wilson Reagan
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Interesting... If Bill checked out his wife's website, he'd see that Reagan is named as one of her favorite presidents:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 7:55 PM:Bill thinks of himself as some kind of Ghandi figure, a really transformative leader. Obama shot that down with one hand. Bill was really just a corruupt govenor from the poorest state in the land who stuck his johnson in any hunk of trailer trash that blinked.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 7:58 PM:Well, if Obama thinks Clinton was a better president than Reagan he can just come out and say so, can't he? How hard is that?
Helter wrote on January 18, 2008 8:00 PM:Bill "Republican-Lite" Clinton is hitting Obama on the Reagan line? He of the doctrine of "Let's Get the Welfare Queens Off their Asses and into jobs?"
Too much.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 8:01 PM:If Hillary thinks there's still a mass of voters out there who'll automatically vote for her because she's the "Democrat," she's going to lose.
Really, even if Obama backs her if she is the nominee? Wow, what a great leader he is!
PrometheusSpeaks wrote on January 18, 2008 8:05 PM:Shouldn't you at least point out that Clinton was mistating what Obama said, i.e. he never said they had all the good ideas.
John Petty wrote on January 18, 2008 8:05 PM:What is this? Clinton Bashing Headquarters?
Face it: Your guy stepped in it, big time. If you think invoking Ronald Reagan in any way helps you in this campaign, you are out of your collective gourds.
read this wrote on January 18, 2008 8:18 PM:hey john petty, read this:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
I knew the Democrats would find some way to fuck up a sure thing. Nominate Hillary and lose the general appears to be the plan.
laurel wrote on January 18, 2008 8:30 PM:Will Obama supporters stop using "Goldwater girl" as proof that Hillary is a hypocrite...she was a teen at that time - many people discover their true beliefs in college, which is when they learn to grow as an individual who thinks independently. I was raised in a very strict religious home and when I read my diaries from when I was 18, I'm surprised that I used to really believe in some type of a god, whereas now 6 years later, I don't believe in god at all. People change...Hillary has spent a significant time of her life as a Democrat...who cares if she was a Republican in her teens - she grew up in a Republican home and I'm sure her parents influenced her a lot. Thankfully, she learned to think for herself in college.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 8:34 PM:Oh, and Bill:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health...
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.
"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...
"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
PeterB wrote on January 18, 2008 8:43 PM:DOUCHEBAG!!!
Bill you are pathetic. For gods sake have some dignity and stay above the fray. He has been nothing but pissy for the last three weeks. I really hope Billary loses, just to hear him spin the loss on Charlie Rose.
Michael A wrote on January 18, 2008 8:44 PM:I am soooo sick of the clintons. All they do is lie and whine and distort and then play the victims. I don't think I can take 4 years of listening to this nonsense from these people. Clinton fatigue is setting in big time.
peterb wrote on January 18, 2008 8:45 PM:Bill Clinton - you killed the democratic party and half-assed on every promise:
health care
gay rights
environment
tax reform
welfare
medicaid
Now you expect us to vote for you again!
Why so that we can set the dems back another 12 years. F-that!
Yes this is Clinton Bashing Headquarters. Evidence by the fact that they continue claim bias on the part of TMP when TMP has gone out of its way to point to the Clintons' distortions or whatever.
We all know you have to be careful what you say in a campaign because it will be used against you. Obama was ill-advised uttering such comments, but he wanted to smack Hillary so he decided to do it by smacking Bill. Stick to talking about the issues, health care, the war, energy, environment, the economy, etc. and under no circumstance mention Reagan and good in the same sentence.
Zephyrus wrote on January 18, 2008 8:49 PM:Am I the only one who thinks the Clintons are leaving a huge avenue of attack open for Obama?
Bill: [insert lies of various sorts]
Obama: Bill Clinton, I'm sad to say, is lying.
Hillary: I'm outraged that you would claim that Bill would lie to the American people!
American people: ...
NCSteve wrote on January 18, 2008 8:52 PM:Jeesuz, there are so many armchair campaign managers around here that it reminds me of being back in Kentucky the day after they lose a basketball game.
laurel wrote on January 18, 2008 8:54 PM:And for those who keep denying that a precinct caption made a flyer to be "A Democrat for a Day" then check out the link for the scanned flyer.
Btw, what irks me about Obama is that he pretends to be "above dirty politics" and yet he is just as much of a politician as Clinton - he has simply chosen a different brand image to sell himself. He too twists Clinton's words to distort meanings. But Obamamaniacs claim that nooo, Clinton is the liar and hypocrite - not Obama. Clinton has never pretended to be above politics so of course she will twist things to her advantage, just as all politicians do - including Obama! I don't blindly insist that Clinton is perfect. Unfortunately Obama supporters worship the ground that Obama walks on and they go in such a frenzy if anyone criticizes him. He is a politician and distorts facts just like everyone else.
laurel wrote on January 18, 2008 8:58 PM:oops, forgot to include the link for obama's democrat for a day flyer. and yes i know that it was the precinct caption not obama's campaign that approved the flyer... but you can't accuse hillary of everything a supporter of hers does if you don't hold obama to the same standard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/nevada-flier-by-obama-pre_n_81451.html
This one sealed the deal for Obama for me. Remember what Obama was doing after college during the Reagan years? Instead of going straight to law school, he took time off from his studies to go to Chicago to be a community organizer among people devastated by the steel mill shutdowns of the Reagan era.
Now I finally know that neither Sen. Clinton nor John Edwards has the presidential judgment to evaluate another leader's statements in context. What hotheads!
The nerve of them to think that someone like Barack Obama, who was trying to provide relief in Chicago from Reagan era economic policies and corporate greed during the 1980's could possibly have been praising Reagan's policies yesterday.
In fact Sen. Obama was actually critiquing the Democratic Party during the Reagan years for failing to capture the public's support with bold ideas, leaving a big vacuum for Ronald Reagan to bamboozle the voters with his movie star charm and his simply-stated appealing ideas.
Quit acting so knee-jerk ignorant, Sen. Clinton and former Sen. Edwards! Quit misleading the voters about Sen. Obama's stance and come up with something inspiring of your own!
Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 9:07 PM:Kos on how stupid this Clinton argument is:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126
and
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/195212/284/181/439165
TrueBlue wrote on January 18, 2008 9:12 PM:I sent the Hillary loves Reagan story (it's her own frickin' website, for crying out loud) as a tip to the following: Huffington Post, Wonkette, Raw Story and Drudge. Please pass it around--maybe to Nevada newspapers for tomorrow morning?!!
HarpoMarxist wrote on January 18, 2008 9:13 PM:"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002
"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
John McCutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:14 PM:Obama Interview With SF Chronicle Editors
Sen. Obama was interviewed by the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday - the one hour interview can be seen here:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics c wrote on January 18, 2008 9:17 PM:
Laurel, you're quite right that both camps have at times seized on words out of context, and both have minions who have committed fouls.
We are, however, on this thread considering Bill C, for whom I still have some affection, but who even his best friends must acknowledge is not a consistent truth-teller.
And while I'm sure there's some Obama-olatry around, I'm tired of this meme that support for the Illinois Senator is tantamount to backing him for sainthood. Some of us have seen a lot of politicians come and go and happen to think this is a pretty good one. That's all.
Lis wrote on January 18, 2008 9:18 PM:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but hasn't Obama been running for a year on a campaign of change? Hasn't he been saying for a year now that he wants to get rid of the partisanship, the bottle-neck, the gridlock in Congress?
So why attack him for praising a Republican? Isn't that part of his campaign's premise?
Mike Brittingham wrote on January 18, 2008 9:30 PM:
If Bill can persuade Monica Lewinsky to publically endorse Hillary's campaign, and if she is elected as a result... and she then names Monica as the "Special Secretary of Conflict Resolution" in her new cabinet... then and only then, will the Clinton's have a second chance to ply their mischief, and we'll forget all about the great RR.
This REALLY needs to be promoted with a separate TMPEC blog-entry of its very own. PLEASE!!
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 9:37 PM:That greater lover of all things conservative, Kos, has chimed in:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/182537/491/236/439126
And here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/195212/284/181/439165
And here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/21341/1391/173/439189
And this is just dessert:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/203027/281/162/439176
GMFORD wrote on January 18, 2008 9:54 PM:What Obama said was true. Can't blame Bill for taking offense but his attack was below the belt.
In Clinton's defense the country was not quite ready for real change at the time he took office as when Reagan was elected. Now, after 30 years of creeping conservatism culminating in 8 years of rampant conservatism, Americans are desperately ready for real change now.
Obama's comments tell me that he 'gets it'. He realizes we don't have to play defense anymore while republicans advance their agenda and frame the message. It's the Dems turn to carry the ball, advance our agenda and frame the message.
Martin Edwin Andersen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:54 PM:
Immediately after Reagan died--on June 28, 1994--CNN reported that:
"Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook."
The CNN report continued:
"'Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere,' their statement said."
(See:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.main/index.html)
More interestingly--and in retrospect understandably, given their common penchant for lying--President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon at his funeral like this: "May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close."
(See: The New York Times, April 28, 1994; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DD1730F93BA15757C0A962958260)
Now the Clinton camp followers hypocritically make Obama's statement of fact--that Reagan ushered in a sea-change in U.S. politics, whether you agreed with his direction or not--into some claim that Obama is less than genuine in his politics.
Clinton talking point No. 1: That Reagan busted unions, therefore Obama must been less than committed to the labor movement.
Meanwhile, people forget that Bill Clinton pardoned the union-busting international financier Mark Rich.
(See http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0212-04.html)
Elsewhere I have blogged that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Richard Nixon in pumps.
Need there be any more proof?
Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland
I sent the Hillary loves Reagan link and story to all the editors of the Las Vegas Sun, the paper that enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. Let's see if they have the guts to run the story in the morning paper.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 10:03 PM:Why is Ben Smith doing a better job of knocking this crap down than TPM?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_Obama_and_Reagan_Heavena_brighter_place.html
Height of Hypocrisy wrote on January 18, 2008 10:11 PM:Posted on Hillary's Website. Seriously.
Go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Regarding Hillary's "favorite presidents" :
David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 10:30 PM:Keith @ 6:04 PM said: Three posts, repeating the same lie all three times, and yet you continue to present this as if it's a valid argument from the Clintons.
Or, what's worse, as if it were NEWS.
Josh Marshall's protests to the contrary, Greg Sargent's Horse's "Mouth" (talk about getting it backwards!) is far from objective or neutral in covering this race, which of course is entirely his right--and more power to him--just as it's our right to skip over his posts. His consistent anti-Obama/pro Clinton posts including headlines belie his prejudice consistently and persistently. Reading this fusillade is tiresome, admittedly, but voluntary. Much worse, IMHO, it that it's damaging to the reputation of TPM, which elsewhere is a reliable source of news not found on other sites.
Luckily there is a solution at hand: See Greg, Scroll on!
Common Sense wrote on January 18, 2008 10:38 PM:Dawn:
One of the lamest defense in the history of EVER. Not a peep out of the Hillary campaign when they got the endorsement. But NOW, they have Cutler come out and say he lied when wrote his editorial. And the tape, oh, it's been damaged. How convenient. She should have just said the dog ate the tape. LOL
Seriously, how can you folks support someone who has so little respect for voters intelligence and apparently doesn't understand the concept of integrity?
This is just plain LAUGHABLE.
upper left wrote on January 18, 2008 10:43 PM:God, I am truly coming to loathe the Clintons. They disgust me with their Rovian smears and distortions. I never thought I would see the day when I would seriously consider not voting for the Dem nominee, but I am almost there...
I am so tired of this kind of politics. If HRC wins the nomination with all her bullshit lies, and Bloomberg runs, I will very seriously consider voting for him.
The Clintons are a cancer on the Democratic party. We need to cut them out.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 10:43 PM:I just love Google:
''I don't worry,'' Daschle said. ''The recent polling data suggests that with all of this imbalance and all of this reach and all of this power that the right has today -- in media, in think tanks and on the radio and with the White House -- with all of that, on many of the issues the American people care the most about, Democrats are now leading. It's very encouraging to us.''
It is not so encouraging, however, to some other Democrats, who say that asking voters how they feel about the party on a bunch of individual positions -- deficit spending, a patients' bill of rights -- is not the same thing as having a coherent idea of where you want to take the country 10 or 20 years from now. They want Podesta's group to function not simply as a TV booking agency but also as the kind of idea factory that Heritage, Cato and A.E.I. were in the 1970's, pumping out provocative new proposals that could eventually define in the public mind what it means to be progressive.
Senator Hillary Clinton is one of them. ''We do have to do a better job to compete in the arena with the ideas we already have,'' she told me. ''But it's also clear to me that we need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democratic Party's values.''
Duane wrote on January 18, 2008 10:55 PM:She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.
I guess Hillary shouldn't have been so nuanced. Let's face it, she really stepped in it this time. She clearly isn't ready for the big leagues. She should know better than to wave the red flag of Reaganism in the faces of progressives.
martin X. wrote on January 18, 2008 11:01 PM:What kills me about so many of you Hillary supporters is that your defense of her is always centered around her husband's record as President.
That's not to say Hillary wasn't involved in any way during Bill's presidency. Obviously she was a trusted advisor. But so was George Stefanopolous.
Please, Hillary-folk, if you're going to blow smoke about her political accomplishments use her record as an elected official. Or is agreeing with everything Joe Lieberman says not impressive enough?
John McCutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 11:02 PM:News you won't hear from HillShill Sargent, KOS reports
Billary Has JoeMentum's Back Believes that McJoe Should Keep Committee Assignments Despite Campaigning for McCain
Can't trust the Clintons
Can't trust the Clintons' sycophants
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/203027/281
OK, excuse me for just one second but can someone tell me what the hell has gotten into Barack Obama? Peyote?
Seriously. Ronald Reagan? WTF? There's nothing nice about Ronald Reagan. There's no plausible defense for someone calling themselves a Democrat to be invoking Ronald Reagen as some sort of example to be emulated. That's not nice. That's indefensible.
Maybe he is auditioning to be John McCain's running mate now? Bloomberg's? WTF?
Publicus wrote on January 18, 2008 11:09 PM:CalD:
You are a few hours late for your faux indignation. You'll know doubt be surprised to learn that (1) the Clintons lied about what Obama said and (2) in fact praised Reagan as one her favorite presidents. I know, the Clintons lying . . . Shocking. And yet, it is all true.
The Clintons are liars.
Duane wrote on January 18, 2008 11:16 PM:Right, CAlD?? Same thing with Hillary, what in HELL is she thinking? Let's be honest, there is no way that Hillary can be considered a Republican and say nice things about Reagan on her website. As you've clearly illustrated, it just isn't possible.
Oh wait, only one of them said nice things about Reagan and that was Hillary.
Oopsie, guess you just torpedoed Hillary Clinton. Not surprising though. (If I was a Clinton supporter I'd cringe every time I attacked her opponent for something because you just know it's coming back on you threefold.)
Helter wrote on January 18, 2008 11:20 PM:Hillary speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago's dinner in April 2006 said:
"19 years ago a Republican gave a speech about deficits which I think rings true today. He said close the deficit and lock economic expansion in place for the years ahead or return to the days of inflation and stagnation.
We must answer the call to action now if we are to preserve and protect our economic expansion. The answer is clear; get on and stay on the road of declining deficits.
The speaker, President Ronald Reagan.
You know, we can do this. But we've got to forge a new bipartisan consensus."
http://www.justhillary.com/herwords/economy411.php
Invoking the memory of Reagan and calling for bi-partisanship back in 2006. Now she's changed her tune.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 11:30 PM:I can't believe her campaign is trying to blame Obama's campaign for the press release on their website (bad oppo alert).
This is fucking pathetic. And TPM, where are you on this? No update? You've posted three posts repeating this nonsense and not one update on the hypocrisy at work.
Her campaign has no integrity.
CalD wrote on January 18, 2008 11:33 PM:So are you guys saying Barack Obama didn't actually say:
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
????
Because if Barack Obama didn't say that, then he apparently has a twin brother who a) looks just like him and b) thinks Ronald Reagan was pretty keen. There's video.
Publicus wrote on January 18, 2008 11:42 PM:CalD:
Apparently you are about a day late. I don't have a problem with what he said, since he isn't praising Reagan's policies but noting his ability to tap into Americans desire for change. I'm sure you'll read something far more nefarious into what he's saying, but then you have a vested interest in distorting what he said.
The uproar is about the Clintons claiming that Obama said that Republicans were the party of better ideas. Unfortunately that's a lie. And it's topped off by the fact that when the Salmon Press Dailies endorsed her, they listed her favorite presidents--including George H.W. Bush and Reagan.
A month later, they claim that she did not say that Reagan was her favorite, but praised him for his optimism. This isn't from the tape/transcript of the interview, though. Apparently the co-owners dog at that part of the tape.
Your candidate is a liar.
Josh wrote on January 18, 2008 11:48 PM:Seriously, Cal, your talking points are stale. Freshen them up.
And surf on over to Hillary's site, where she lists Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.
CalD wrote on January 18, 2008 11:51 PM:Well I've certainly got a problem with what Barack Obama said about Reagan. I guess I'm just not sycophantic enough to think it's OK for a Democrat to go around praising Ronald Reagan for "[putting] us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."
That's just not OK.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 11:58 PM:CalD:
I'm shocked. As finely as you parse out the 2002 AUMF vote to back up your own tortured reading, I'm shocked that you would have trouble with a sentence so clear as "[putting] us on a fundamentally different path...".
Notice what's missing from his statement? Give up? He's not making a value judgment about the direction of the path. Just an objective observation.
If you were an honest broker, you'd acknowledge the reality here. Credibility can't be regained once its lost. Just ask Senator Clinton.
CalD wrote on January 19, 2008 12:17 AM:If you're too young to remember the mess that Ronald Reagan made of our country when he "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," I can help you count the ways.
rachelrachel wrote on January 19, 2008 12:35 AM:The Salmon Press didn't offer a direct quote. Perhaps the writer of the piece, to save space, was summarizing and paraphrasing a longer conversation, and presented a list of presidents about whom Hillary had something praiseworthy to say.
Unless somebody can present a credible reason why Cutler would willingly fabricate a lie, it seems like it's the best out there.
The problem wasn't that Obama had laudatory things to say about Reagan, it was that he compared Reagan and the Republicans favorably in some ways to Clinton and the Democrats. This was a stupid, hamfisted thing for him to do. Of course if he says something like that, he's going to be slapped down for it.
I think he was trying to make a reasonable point, but he said it in such a clumsy way that he was begging for the kind of response.
This is the sort of thing that makes me question whether he is ready for prime time.
rachelrachel wrote on January 19, 2008 12:37 AM:I meant to say:
Unless somebody can present a credible reason why Cutler would willingly fabricate a lie, it seems like my explanation is the best EXPLANATION out there.
Keith wrote on January 19, 2008 12:43 AM:CalD:
Remember his policies distinctly. Didn't agree with most of them (I was young, so I don't remember them all). Still can't dispute the statement--he put the country on a fundamentally different path (which we are still on). Obama offered no comment on the direction of that path (or in anyway endorsed it). If you can't acknowledge that reality, then there's nothing else to talk about.
RachelRachel:
They endorsed her; she posted the endorsement on her website. I'm not going to argue with what she said or didn't say, but it's pretty clear that she was exactly shitting on Reagan or his legacy.
As for the stuff about Obama, none of what you are saying is actually true--in the sense that Obama didn't say it. The Clintons are responsible for their response not Obama. Perhaps you should take them to task for lying. You won't, but you should demand more from the potential next POTUS.
Integrity matters.
Common Sense wrote on January 19, 2008 12:49 AM:RachelRachel:
Because it allows Clinton to not look like a hypocrite the day before the caucus. This excuse is almost as bad as Bob Johnson's.
On her website since December (12/12/2007) and today, low and behold, the Clintons discover that it's not accurate. You want folks to give her the benefit of the doubt with the equivalent of the dog ate my homework, but resist acknowledging that the Clintons are lying about what Obama said.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
sue03 wrote on January 19, 2008 12:52 AM:To CalD:
Read the quote again, slowly this time and breathe. Barack Obama pointed out that Ronald Reagan saw that voters would be receptive to a message of clarity, optimism, dynamism and entrepreneurship, and Reagan's campaign styled his speeches to capitalize on those desires of voters.
I reiterate as I posted earlier. Barack Obama went to Chicago to be a community organizer during the Reagan administration's years. Barack Obama was organizing people impacted by steel plant shutdowns. Barack Obama is not going to turn around now and stab in the back all the people he was working with as an organizer.
He is not praising the tragedy Reagan caused. He is pointing out that the pessimism of the Carter reelection campaign left a hole wide open enough for the Heritage Foundation types to drive a truck through with their ideas, zeroing in on the pulse of voters.
Sen. Obama is telling us that we must draw from this the lesson that to win the Democrats must campaign on a platform of possibility that will mobilize support for positive change, the way the coordinated conservative publicity apparatus did to get Reagan elected and throughout his presidency to ram his programs through.
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month). wrote on January 19, 2008 12:56 AM:Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Gotta Love the Clintons! wrote on January 19, 2008 1:05 AM:Two Obama supporters said they received automated phone calls Friday evening in which the senator was described as supporting a Republican agenda.
Gregory Martin, a financial adviser in Reno, said the caller, who had a woman's voice, said she was calling to bring to his attention recent comments Obama had made "in support of the Republican Party and Bush's vision for America." The call also said Obama was in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and was identified as coming from "friends of Hillary Clinton," Martin said.
Amber Erlich, an Obama volunteer from Phoenix, received a similar recorded call at the home of another volunteer in Pioche, Nev., she said. The caller, also a woman, said Obama wants to dump waste at Yucca Mountain and had called the Republican Party "the party of ideas," Erlich said.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment.
CalD wrote on January 19, 2008 1:16 AM:Star Wars
Arming Nicaraguan Death Squads
"Welfare Queens"
Resurgence of Heroin and creation of Crack Cocaine (a.k.a. the "War on Drugs/Just say No.)
Selling helicopters and chemical weapon precursors to Saddam Hussein.
Reganomics
Ballooning Deficits
Silence = Death
Edwin Meese
HUD grant rigging
EPA/Superfund scandal
S&L Crisis...
Great guy, that Ronald Reagan. To quote Barack Obama he really "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Very admirable.
ARR wrote on January 19, 2008 1:16 AM:The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is purposely misconstruing what Obama actually said. AND she is a hypocrite.
She has said in the past that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.
See her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
An excerpt:
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Seems she should be in for some of righteous indignation from her own supporters and herself and Bill!
CalD:
Good thing Obama didn't praise his policies or even say he was a great guy. Otherwise you'd actually be making a point right now. Must chap your ass that Clinton named Reagan (along with George HW Bush) as one of her favorite presidents a month ago.
So, it's settled. You have no credibility or integrity. It's a shame what partisanship can make folks say or do. A real shame.
sue03 wrote on January 19, 2008 1:34 AM:To CalD:
Don't you get it? As a Latin American Studies major in college at the time Ronald Reagan was elected, I followed Reagan's campaign and his presidency and could probably make an even longer list of the horrors he wreaked on the Nicaraguan people.
That is not the point. Sen. Obama is not out to praise Caesar Ronald Reagan, but to point out how to build a strong enough electoral coalition to "bury" the Republican nominee at the polls in November and finally put the close to the Reagan-Bush years.
Quit spreading your anti-Obama calumny. I am 48 years old and do not need to be lectured about the Reagan years. I will never forget.
gnostic19 wrote on January 19, 2008 2:05 AM:Someone please tell Bill he is not on the ballot in any of these states. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to him, but he must be made aware if it, don't ya think?
Seriously, if Hillary has already chosen her VP then lets let Obama and Edwards choose theirs so we can at least have a fair fight..
rachelrachel wrote on January 19, 2008 2:17 AM:KEITH: They endorsed her; she posted the endorsement on her website. I'm not going to argue with what she said or didn't say, but it's pretty clear that she was exactly shitting on Reagan or his legacy.
According to the publisher, "She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills." Nothing about his legacy or about what he did with his communication skills.
As for the stuff about Obama, none of what you are saying is actually true--in the sense that Obama didn't say it.
Here's what I said: "The problem wasn't that Obama had laudatory things to say about Reagan, it was that he compared Reagan and the Republicans favorably in some ways to Clinton and the Democrats."
Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Clinton did not. There might be some truth to that; but it does make Reagan look, in at least one way, bigger and more significant than Clinton. Then he said that during the 1990's the GOP -- not Clinton's Democrats -- was the real party of ideas. This is where he gets into trouble. Put the two together, and you've got something that's hard to explain to the Democratic primary voters.
Those are two areas where, at least on the face of it, Barack seems to be comparing the Republicans favorably to Clinton.
Common Sense:
The Clintons are responsible for their response not Obama. Perhaps you should take them to task for lying.
Politicians always spin things around to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad, or they try to. If this is what you call "lying," then so be it. Obama plays the same game.
You won't, but you should demand more from the potential next POTUS.
Senator Obama stretched the truth quite a bit with his by now well-known "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq War. I see he's dredging up that tired old canard because he doesn't have an answer about the REagan thing.
Common Sense:
You want folks to give her the benefit of the doubt with the equivalent of the dog ate my homework, but resist acknowledging that the Clintons are lying about what Obama said.
I don't want anybody to give anybody the benefit of the doubt. It's just that I don't think that that the Clintons' utterances about Reagan are at all comparable to what Obama said.
It's up to the voters to draw their own conclusions.
Wow, cool. I think it was me who started this thing, or at least, I found this on my own before I saw anyone else mention it. See my comment at 4:13pm on the following thread:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_personally_slams_obama_over_reagan_comments.php
I am right proud to have been a part of this shining example of the power of the internet, and right proud of fellow posters like timbnyc, Jane, and Geek Esq., among many others, who kept dogging that bone. And it couldn't have been for a better cause. I'm going to sleep well tonight. I'd sleep even better if the MSM picked up on this stuff the way DKos did. And I'd sleep right through the weekend if some enterprising investigative reporters took the initiative in pressuring the Salmon Press editorial board to turn over tapes/notes regarding what Hillary actually said to them. (As a lawyer I'd love to subpoena or depose them, but alas, there's no crime or cause of action here.)
The reason I'd want that sort of evidence is David Cutler's carefully worded statement attempting to rehabilitate Hillary, a statement which is clearly a "non-retraction retraction." Note how it merely denies something that's actually never been suggested. That is, he says that Hillary never told the Salmon Press that Reagan was "her favorite President." Nowhere in this statement does he say that Hillary didn't name Reagan on a list of favorite presidents (which is all that the editorial says). He says only that he wasn't #1 on that list. Nice.
Of course, Cutler's statement is suspect in any case, procured as it surely was by a call from Bill or Hillary themselves. But it would seem that Cutler tried to maintain *some* sense of journalistic integrity by putting out a statement that, due to its careful wording, would not falsely claim that the statement in the prior editorial was inaccurate (yet still provide some cosmetic political cover for his candidate of choice).
Anyway, a lame attempt to explain away a real doozy of a smoking gun. Speaking of which, what the hey... one more hyperlink for old time's sake. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President, don'tcha know:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Q.E.D.!!!
rachelrachel wrote on January 19, 2008 2:20 AM:I mistakenly attributed some of Keith's statements to Common Sense. My humble apologies to them both.
serena1313 wrote on January 19, 2008 6:37 AM:"Hillary's list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and *** Reagan *** - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
serena1313 wrote on January 19, 2008 6:40 AM:"Hillary's list of favorite presidents -
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and
***** Reagan *****
- demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
serena1313 wrote on January 19, 2008 6:41 AM:Here is what Obama said wrt Reagan:
"I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling [and what we are feeling today]. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren't working."
Obama is not comparing himself to Reagan, he is comparing the time when people were clamouring for change as now. Reagan brought in a lot of democrats because his rhetoric was appealing. Likewise JFK brought in some republicans. So what Obama was saying is that people are again ready for change and that moment is now.
Obama is tapping into what the country wants: "change, hope and optimism." Isn't that what Americans have been complaining about: no one listens to us in Washington?
I do want to note, too that we have are so accustomed to talking points -- after 7 years -- that jumping to conclusions rather than taking a moment to consider what was actually said is reflexive. Iam equally guilty. That, however, is the world [Rove and] Bush brought us. From day one they started using "talking points" to "dumb-down" the electorate. They do not want people to think. They want us to react, rather than think, so they use e_motionally charged language. It is a tactic they employed, among others, to divide the nation. As long as we do not think they control the dialogue. This administration has been and is waging a psychological mind-game (for lack of a better word) "war" per se against the public.
Isn't it refreshing to hear the candidates talk like grown-ups! They talk "to" us vs. "at" us.
Go Bill! Many of us who remember the "change" of the Reagan era would kindly suggest that Mr. Obama shove his Reagen loving "change" where the sun doesn't shine.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 19, 2008 6:52 AM:Let's Tell Drudge: "I just submitted the hillaryclinton.com link to Drudge. I recommend other people do the same."
You're pathetic.
CalD wrote on January 19, 2008 8:10 AM:There's rather a lot of daylight between admiring someone's communication skills or their optimism and praising the leadership of someone who led the country in a destructive direction -- particularly when the latter is also a pretty transparent attempt just to score a few cheap points with California Republicans.
J. Henriksen wrote on January 19, 2008 8:32 AM:Well done.. you throw shit at the only democrat that has managed to change USA for the better in 25 years...
What has Obama ever achived? Clinton was a great president. You would do well by remembering that.
The Clinton supporters are sticking to their distortions........I haven't read one of their comments here that acknowledges the fact that the Clinton's intentionally twisted Obama's words in order to set up a straw man argument.
This is right up there in the same category of the Clinton campaign lying and cheating in NH by sending out that last minute mailer totally distorting Obama's pro-choice record [which is now wrecking havoc on the dem party in NH].
This is also right up there in the same category as those last minute Hillary campaign phone calls in NV of whole-cloth lies about Obama's position on Yucca Mountain.
For all the Hillary supporters who want to give her a pass on her AUMF vote because 'Bush deceived the country',
how in hell can you give her a pass on being a repeat deceiver of voters as she campaigns?
Bill & Hillary didn't bother to after Prznt. Bush when he went into Iraq.
They couldn't be bothered to fight for the Constitution when Bush was eviscerating what America is all about.
Yet they've got time and energy to lie about Sen. Obama. To go after a fellow Democrat.
We'll see if the Clintons win many votes from Democrats if Hillary's the nominee.
Way too divisive--and that's not what the country's lookin for.
Hillary's managed to evade examination on teh issues.
The country's facing serious challenges, and her record as a Senator indicates she has not earned a promotion.
So that's 4 posts of Clinton talking-points today and how many for Edwards and Kucinich?
kucinich for Prez wrote on January 19, 2008 9:35 AM:Really, this is the worst kind of bias. Using polls to pick who to talk about. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you're not just looking at bank accounts. Whatever happened to fairness? To letting the voters decide?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 19, 2008 9:38 AM:I am headed out shortly to canvas for Obama, so I wanted to get my predictions for NV in today before the voting starts, so that I can still claim the credit when I get it right (or something like that).
1) Obama
2) Clinton (3-4% behind Obama)
3) Edwards (10-15% behind Obama)
I guess we will see by the time I get back how much a title I have on the prophet's mantle.
Kefa wrote on January 19, 2008 10:02 AM:wow......so much Clinton hate in here....howasabout a little sunshine in here....open a window.....
Clinton/Obama 08 with Edwards as AG.
There doesn't there make you all feel better.
John McCutchen wrote on January 19, 2008 10:21 AM:Interesting MSNBC headlined article from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift.
The Divided Democratic Party
Info comes from sources close to Clintons' campaign, evidently, and doesn't reflect well on the Clintons, especially Bill.
She'd be good at managing the office, but less good at inspiring the nation. He can inspire, but can he manage?
We have less to go on in evaluating Obama. But we can judge him by his campaign. In terms of scope and effectiveness, it rivals the organization the Clintons have been assembling for years, if not decades. Obama reaches beyond stereotypes as the first African-American candidate whose appeal transcends racial pride. Hillary's refusal to say whether Obama is prepared to be president has struck a nerve in the African-American community, whose voters are torn between their loyalty to the Clintons and their dismay at what seem to some to be coded appeals to undermine his candidacy.
The Clinton campaign, for all its vaunted professionalism, appears to have lost its way in a jumble of racially charged remarks that, whether by design or by accident, have elevated race consciousness. The two candidates called a truce at the Las Vegas debate, but the damage has been done. President Clinton's legacy has been tarnished, perhaps permanently, with a constituency where he was once so beloved he was considered the first black president. The nasty exchanges could cost Hillary with African-American voters. And whoever wins the nomination could pay the price in November for a party with one segment or another turned off by the exclusionary tactics.
President Clinton is described as "dejected" by the turn of events
Newsweek's headline asks
Can Clinton or Obama pull the party together?
Rhetorical?
It is beyond dispute who can unite and which candidate will divide the Democratic Party in November. Obama will have no trouble bringing the Clintons supporters enthusiastically behind him.
The Clintons, on the other hand, true to form,having divided the country, have with their 2008 campaign antics seriously, perhaps fatally, divided Democrats and not just the far left wing but professionals, blacks, highly educated, upper income, anti-war democrats and dem leaning independents who have enthusiastically embraced the Obama campaign and in a few short months, formed up in on of the most powerful, broad-based community grassroots organizations in US history.
I'll tell you, I watched that video in full... several times... and each time made me angrier than the time before. Obama just doesn't get it. Now, I'm not a fan of Hillary either, but I'd rather vote for someone who made a bad vote she won't apologize for than someone who thinks Ronald Reagan got it, or was the right person for the right time, or that America in the '80s were used to 'excesses' - mainly referring to the civil rights movement, feminist movement, union movement and other such things that Ronald Reagan actively worked against.
DonnaG wrote on January 19, 2008 10:55 AM:For months, Hillary ran against GWB, who is not even on the ballot.
Now, we're treated to a situation of Bill Clinton acting like he is a candidate in the race.
Obama is busy building a winning majority for wide future citizen support to countervail all that was set in motion by the Reagan Revolution, the power of which led to Bill Clinton, at the least, co-oping republican themes during his presidency, and later embracing GHWB, and which later [partly because of Bill's Oval Office behavior] allowed GWB to win in 2000 and bring the horrors we now live with from GWB/Cheney.
Remember a while ago when the Hillary side asserted that Bill and George Bush, Sr would be sent around the world? Give me a break, folks.....about which candidate is playing fence and political straddling games.
Bill Clinton is obviously being sorely challenged to try to salvage his own here-to-fore unquestioned 'brand' in the face of this 30 year overview presented by Obama.
Tapper wrote on January 19, 2008 11:03 AM:
Everything we need to know about Obama:
1) his supporters have told us that they will not support any other Dem nominee (they prefer 10,000-Years-in-Iraq McCain to HRC);
2) he is the darling Dem of the Repub conservatives;
3) he openly campaigns with proud homophobes and misogynists.
Oh, and he's soooo "progressive" that he has voted for EVERY BUSH WAR APPROPRIATION and the Patriot Act.
Obama, against the war until he had a vote that actually mattered!
stlounick wrote on January 19, 2008 11:24 AM:Clinton and Edwards--for the war when their vote really mattered!
Cmac wrote on January 19, 2008 11:57 AM:Hey Obama lovers this is the true link.
Obama is an empty vessel filled with Republican hate.
corpus juris wrote on January 19, 2008 12:02 PM:"Obama's whole point with his Reagan comparison is that he has the willingness and ability to shift the political landscape the way Reagan did and the way Clinton did not." RS
Do you think that a guy with a ego the size of Bill Clinton's wouldn't find what Obama said offensive.
Greatness has more to do with timing than ability. Reagan might have been a doofus, but he was a well timed doofus. Bill will be remembered in history as a mid-level President because he was a Democrat during a Republican era, his policies were Democratic versions of the then prevailing Republican ideas and nothing major happened. Blow jobs don't count.
Tapper wrote on January 19, 2008 12:11 PM:Yep, no doubt about it, Obama is completely correct to criticize HRC and Edwards for their Authorization votes. And yes he's correct to point to his speech opposing the war before it started.
But that speech signifies nothing.
Since his election to the Senate, when he actually attained power for cha cha change, Obama has been a staunch war supporter. He has shown no, none, zilch leadership on opposing the Bush escalations. Sorry Obamaniacs but that is simply true.
And so the HRC campaign is completely correct to call Obama on his antiwar bs, because on that, as on almost every other issue, he has no credibility. And his pandering to the Reagan Repubs is proof positive of that.
Finally, the Culinary Union did not support him. The leadership of the union decided to support him with no vote, no poll of the membership. Now that's Obama Democracy in action!
Ed wrote on January 19, 2008 12:13 PM:Does anyone really believe that Bill Clinton changed the country half as much as Reagan? Hard to believe anyone other than Bill believes it..
Ed wrote on January 19, 2008 12:14 PM:Do any unions have a rank and file vote? By that standard, Hillary's afscme support is not legitimate, either.
Ed wrote on January 19, 2008 12:16 PM:http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/breaking_hillary_wins_big_asfcme_endorsement.php
33 votes of AFSCME kingmakers delivered the union support to Hillary. The Clintonites are a bunch of crybabies!
John wrote on January 19, 2008 12:24 PM:Clintons: LYING HYPOCRITES!
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...
"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4092735
And, not like Obama haters will accept this, even though it's true and no many time it's repeated, OBAMA NEVER SAID HE LIKED REAGAN OR HIS IDEAS. He merely stated the obvious, that Reagan seized an opportunity for change, like we have right now, and ran with it, like he intends to do as well. The idea that Obama likes Reagan's policies is beyond ridiculous, and if you believe that, I want whatever it is you're smoking. Seriously people. Take a deep breath and a step back. Slowly.
When did we get a veto-proof majority in the Senate?
Thanks Ed for making my point. Are all Obamaniacs as dense? Silly question!
jimijazz wrote on January 19, 2008 1:26 PM:And to refresh the Clintons memory guess who Bill Clinton was schmoozing with right after his 1992 election vitory? Ronald Reagan.
loki wrote on January 19, 2008 1:31 PM:Excellent post today from Krugman. Another example of Obama's pandering (however incorrectly) to Republicans.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Tony R. wrote on January 19, 2008 1:50 PM:Tapper, I particularly like your first point. While I certainly understand the Obama crowd's frustration with the Clinton tactics in this case I am a bit apalled at all these people saying they wouldn't vote for HRC if she's the candidate. I guess they'd rather have McCain/Romney/Huckabee in office?
But people, please, really. I agree overall with what Obama was trying to get across. But this...
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
...is clearly a shot at Clinton regardless of intent and nobody should be surprised that it elicited a response. You all seem to know so much about politic but, alas, know nothing about politics!
What exactly are we so surprised about here?
And sending stuff to Drudge? Don't get me started...
The nation is simply not accustomed to former presidents taking sides in Democratic primaries. Bill is hardly objective. While he may choose to support Hillary any way he wants, attacking other qualified, appealing Democratic candidates simply because they have the audacity to oppose Hillary is very uncomiing and may well do damage to both the Democratic party and the democratic process. Mrs. Bill Clinton's primary qualification is having been married to Bill. Bill may owe her, the nation does not.
Hillary, the party, the nation would be better off if Bill would just shut up. Does America really want to listen to Bill pontificate from the White House. Spare us.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 2:52 PM:Tony R,
I will NEVER vote for Hillary Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. If she is nominated and the other "Republican" candidate is not mainstream, I think you will see a huge upraising against the status quo parties and the first major, viable independent candidacy in modern history with Mike Bloomberg. The two arguments against an independent running and winning are 1. money... oops Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire, and 2. party organization
.... and the internet makes a grassroots movement of millions and millions feasible.
Some things rise above partisan politics. We have lived with a presidency based on lies for seven years and it is destroying the nation and world peace. We have lived with an incompetent presidency based on family ties, corporate dollars and loyal incompetent cronies. We have seen what the Bush-Clinton agenda supporting unchecked corporate profiteering looks like over 22 years. We do not need more of the same. Hillary campaigns just like Bush-Rove and she would govern just like them too. Hillary's supporters should weigh the enormous negative consequences for the nation if Mrs. Bill Clinton is nominated and elected, supress their inflated, mean-spirited egos, and think of the best for the nation and world. Hillary simply is not qualified to be our leader.
Anybody but Hillary in 2008... Yep, sorry to say it, BUT ANYBODY.
random wrote on January 19, 2008 2:57 PM:Tony R. So now if someone criticizes Bill Clinton's presidency it is an unfair attack on Hillary?
I am so sick of the Clintons. They are are dishonest, dirty playing, partisan hacks and always, always "victims."
Heaven spare us from having the MacBeths back in the White House.
Gregor wrote on January 19, 2008 3:49 PM:Need an explanation for Bill's eye-opening anger? After all, Bill has been very angry for about 60 days now. He let loose in the Charlie Rose interview, and has never let up.
Here is my take:
The Clinton panic is not just emotional. It's financial. The word is that Bill has taken in a ton of capital to his Foundation, on the promise that HRC gets the White House, and he can dole out some favors. The NYT already took a first swipe at this issue. But there's MORE coming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?ei=5124&en=6551dc1319d1e2b9&ex=1355893200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all
HRC supporters: you need to get more realistic about what will happen to HRC in the general. Especially should McCain be the nominee. Bill is now a loose cannon on the campaign trail. Bill is now a liability. A big one. This Foundation story is gonna blow. But most important of all: She is complete dud with Independents and moderate Republicans.
I must say, Bills's extraordinary anger at Obama points directly to this emerging Foundation story.
michael valentine wrote on January 19, 2008 3:52 PM:Bill's angry attacks are really getting a little old. Are the jabs getting too close?
Jim H wrote on January 20, 2008 10:07 PM:Hey, I hate to bust you, but Obama did run radio ads in those rural areas where he did so well, urging Republicans to sign up for the Democratic caucus to defeat Clinton. No sharp elbows from him. No, he's totally blameless.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:09 PM:Whahhhahahahah boooooo hoooo Bills being mean to Obama sniffle boo hoo. Last week he lost because Hill and Bill supposedly hate black people this week must just be Bill who is being mean. My take Obama is playing to the cable news media to inflame, so they it will be someone else at fault instead of the fact that the voters are the ones rejecting Obama as the nominee.
Keeps them off of his record, and his friends.
paDem wrote on January 21, 2008 2:44 PM:Reading these comment boards is proving to be very interesting.
You've got to wonder about how awsome a threat to the status quo Obama represents. The hatefulness being spewed in his direction already, by both Clinton supporters and GOP operatives here posing as Democrats is really funny.
The goal is obviously to slime him, create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and to take the lustre off of his obviously inspirational leadership style. Pathetic. Mediocrities knocking someone because they know, in their bones, that they can't match him.
Keep it up. It's transparent as hell. For you Clinton supporters, you're just turning people off with your nastiness (although I don't believe there are really all that many of you; I suspect it's one guy in his underwear posting from his parents' basement somewhere under a dozen fake names. That's the image that pops into my mind when I read this stuff, in any case. And the underwear has a hole in it.)
As for the GOP'ers: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. (A. Lincoln). You've had eight years and you've blown it, big time. Get ready for an election defeat of truly historic proportions. Our worst is ten times better than your best.
Hush now. Let the grownups talk.
Tanya wrote on January 21, 2008 5:43 PM:It must be convenient to have your husband proxy the flames at your opponent. I tend to think Bill Clinton is green with envy at Reagan's favorability, which dwarf Bill Clinton's comparably dismal ratings. As always with the Clintons, anything to score a few points.