Video: Obama Pushes Back Aggressively Against Bill Clinton
Here it is: Video of Obama hitting back hard against Bill Clinton on Good Morning America today.
In the interview, Obama sharply questioned Bill's recent attacks on him, repeatedly saying that they were false. Indeed, Obama went further and directly said that when Bill criticized Obama's Reagan comments, he was "making it up."
The remarks are far and away the most aggressive push-back against Bill we've seen from Obama since the former President emerged as Hillary's chief surrogate. Indeed, Obama explicitly drew attention to the extent to which Bill is playing his new self-designated role, saying:
"We've got a formidable opponent -- actually, two formidable opponents, at this point, between Senator Clinton and President Clinton."
Asked if he felt that he was taking on "two candidates," Obama replied:
"There's no doubt that having President Clinton on trail spending most of his time attacking me, it can be a distraction." He added, however, that his wife's advocacy on his behalf "balances" things.
Comments (117)
ajax wrote on January 21, 2008 9:07 AM:As someone who likes both Clinton and Obama a lot and would be ecstatic to have either as prez, I can't figure out how smart this new strategy is. Does it give voice to the residue of resentment and disgust a lot of loyal Democrats feel for the Clintons? Or does it deflate Obama's claim to being a different kind of politician, who is above mudslinging and typical politics?
JoeCHI wrote on January 21, 2008 9:08 AM:So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton's are being too mean to him?
Pass the smelling salts!
Someone needs to inform the Obama's that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.
All of the candidates have spouses who are strongly advocating for their respective spouses. Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.
Further, whatever the media thinks about Bill Clinton is irrelevant. Ultimately, it's for the voters to decide.
And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem to agree that Bill Clinton knows what he's doing.
BluePuppy wrote on January 21, 2008 9:09 AM:I suspect that Obama's camp thinks President Clinton cost them NH & NV. It's a dangerous gambit going after a former president. It makes Obama look small and distracted from his actual opponent, Hillary.
swarty wrote on January 21, 2008 9:13 AM:I think he is setting up 2 fronts of attack here.
1. He is reminding the voters that Bill Clinton has a very public history of lying. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is burned in all of our brains and it was truly the nadir of his presidency. It reminds us that while we like Bill, he is not to be trusted. And it could remind WOMEN voters what they don't like about the Clintons.
2. By bringing up the running against 2 of them he is stating very clearly what we will get if we elect her: 2 co-presidents.
Now many of you will say that is a good thing, and there are many voters who will agree, but it sets up the argument that she is not up to the job all by herself and that her husband needs to be there to help her along. There is no way Obama would ever make that argument frontally.
Just a thought, which I had without the benefit of coffee, so take it for what you will.
jles wrote on January 21, 2008 9:17 AM:I think it is something Obama MUST do. He needs to fight this one with strength. The people of SC need to see him take on Bill, instead of being steamrolled by the Clintons.
And he is being honest...He IS running against two very tough politicians. In my opinion, Bill makes me like Hillary more... Because i feel sorry for her. But i'm not so sure that will help in November.
I suspect that Obama's camp thinks President Clinton cost them NH & NV. It's a dangerous gambit going after a former president. It makes Obama look small and distracted from his actual opponent, Hillary.
I don't agree - I think Bill Clinton looks small and mean-spirited. I think Obama has a very valid point here and I'm glad he's not going to let it go unaddressed (and I'm not an Obama supporter). I loved Bill as president but I think he's interjecting his influence and stature into this candidacy far too much and I agree with Josh - I think it's going to hurt Hillary in the long run. And it weakens Hillary; more than once I've thought, "well, can't she fight her own battles?" The media certainly doesn't help because he gets a lot more air time than any other candidate spouse, but I think it's going to be a problem for her long-term.
BK wrote on January 21, 2008 9:18 AM:This should fire up Bill, which is probably a really good thing for Obama since we've seen Bill make mistakes when he's angry (more often these days) or Hillary's down. Bill's behavior is also chipping away at his own credibility, something we've seen before.
But this is a double-edged sword for Obama. It could weaken the Bill-Hillary dynamic that's going after Obama, or it could elevate Bill's stature on the ticket for some people which might make her appear stronger.
Personally, I've been a big defender of Bill in the past and willing to vote for Hillary in a General Election, but he's giving me serious doubts (not that she hasn't as well). If McCain is the nominee against Hillary, I feel my vote has swung against her, largely because of Bill.
Abdul Kane wrote on January 21, 2008 9:19 AM:Its seems like in the past week I've heard more from Bill Clinton than Hillary
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 21, 2008 9:21 AM:I'm with Josh here. I do think Bill is hurting more than helping and will be even a major liability in the
general election if Senator Clinton gets the nomination. His temper has been ugly, his not so subtle attacks on Obama something I will not forget. Let's remember this guy has always had an ugly and undisciplined side -- the girl friends, the questionable friends, the sexual harassing throughout his career that left many women's lives in tatters (And I voted for him twice).
The Clintons as a couple also have an
ugly side -- ranging from attacking old girlfriends who didn't keep quiet to
jettisoning super people like Lani Guinier when they createsd "problems."
Sure, I'll vote for her in a pinch but
let's be realistic about what her
nomination means. There is a reason for those negatives.
This is a good move by Obama. It shows he's got guts and will defend his honor. It's a fine line between seeming righteous and coming off as an angry black man. I think he walked that line well.
Sure enough, JoeCHI has the Clinton talking points on this one: Bill Clinton is just like every other spouse. Well, there's only one spouse there who's also a former president, and he's trading that reputation for electoral success.
nisleib wrote on January 21, 2008 9:22 AM:Bill Clinton is a proven liar who has been lying about Obama. Obama has to call him out, just like Kennedy and Emmanuel recently called him out.
Strategically reminding people that Clinton is a liar is probably a good idea. We tend to look back at Clinton, in light of Bush's terrible Presidency, and remeber how much better things were in the 90s. We try to ignore the lies he told and his definition of what "is" is.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 9:23 AM:AlwaysTip: Good call. I'm interested in whether Bill's behaviour will tip Hillary's negative up.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 9:24 AM:Ajax wrote:
As someone who likes both Clinton and Obama a lot and would be ecstatic to have either as prez, I can't figure out how smart this new strategy is. Does it give voice to the residue of resentment and disgust a lot of loyal Democrats feel for the Clintons? Or does it deflate Obama's claim to being a different kind of politician, who is above mudslinging and typical politics?"
It is not inconsistent with the "new kind of politics" to point out and rebut half-truths and distortions of your words and record. To lie back and allow Bill Clinton to continue to distort Obama's statements for cheap political gain is not a "new kind of politics", it is political suicide.
Slinging "Mud" is not what Obama is doing. It is cleaning up the place after the mud has been splattered over everything. Do you see the difference? For example, Bill Clinton told an audience in Nevada, just before the caucuses, that Obama said only Republican's had good ideas in the last 10-15 years. He went on to add that he wasn't "making this up". But in fact, he was. No where in Obama's remarks did he characterize republican ideas as "good". Allowing his remarks to be framed this way, without challenging them and pointing out the truth, only allows those remarks to fester into "conventional wisdom". You know, like Al Gore "creating the internet" and all that pablum.
Again, running on the politics of Hope, and attempting to usher in a new kind of politics, doesn't mean you don't vigorously defend your statements and point out the distortions of them.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 9:25 AM:It's good that Obama is calling out the lies for what they are. Shows strength. That's what he needs to do to show the lib base that he's got what it takes to fight it out.
jles wrote on January 21, 2008 9:25 AM:And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem to agree that Bill Clinton knows what he's doing.
I think this is precisely why Obama needs to go after Bill. He seems to be in my opinion distorting the facts about Obama's record, and somehow, even with his history of fibbing, people trust Bill Clinton.
I just can't wake the dynasty, but i'll vote Hillary unless Nader runs. I vote on principles, not just party.
Ted wrote on January 21, 2008 9:25 AM:Swarty is right. Those are the questions that inevitably get raised, if the HRC campaign is going to use Bill as an attack surrogate.
a) Why exactly would you trust this guy, given his record?
and b) If HRC's candidacy is not going to violate the 22nd amendment, how come a former president is acting as its primary spokesperson?
green heron wrote on January 21, 2008 9:27 AM:Bill will hit back I gurantee you. And then the campaign truly will be all about him, as is his desire. Bill--the fat hillbilly--thinks he's running again.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:28 AM:Wait till the black people see what he was involved with in ILL. The things he did to black people. The dishonesty he and his wife were doing. This will get out, the MSM is trying to hid it but it will get out. The site here has not put it up but yesterday it played in the the Chicago papers. The dirty deals, the wink wink. The KOS folks have been on it. It will get out and when it does it will open the eyes of the black population.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 9:28 AM:Here's a thought experiment. What if it were the 2000 Republican primary campaign, and Bush Sr was actively stumping for Bush Jr against McCain? What if Sr was spreading lies about McCain, getting mad at reporters, and engaging in legal but ethically questionable voter intimidation techniques? How do you think conservatives would feel about that?
I know as a liberal, I'd be laughing my pants off at the sight of the red-faced Bush Sr, and would feel nothing but contempt for Bush Jr, who couldn't even campaign without running to his daddy for help.
That's how conservatives see Bill and Hillary.
td wrote on January 21, 2008 9:29 AM:Well finally. This is why I don't want another Bush *or* Clinton in the White House. If the elder is a decent politician, it gives the younger an advantage that doesn't serve the party or the American people well. If she can't stand on her own, if she can't run on her own record, if she has to have an attack dog that has an unreasonable amount of influence, then she's not a strong enough candidate to lead the country. Let Bill shut up so we can hear what Hillary has to say.
JO wrote on January 21, 2008 9:31 AM:Maybe the real question is not whether Obama is running against two people, but rather: Who in the Clinton household is the actual candidate. Certainly there is no precedent for a former president to plunge this deeply into a campaign, which redefines what the title "former President" has had up until now.
I've always wondered why feminists identity with Hillary when she so very clearly fulfills the "old" role model of the spouse who depends on her husband to get where she is today. The Hill/Bill story reminds me of Carmella Soprano's "spec house" real estate development career--including Caremella's need for ask Tony to bust some chops to get the house built when a building inspector got in the way! Is there any other circumstance in which a lawyer from Arkansas with no particular legal record, to say nothing of no record whatsoever in elective office, could be elected to the Senate from New York State after living there for a few months?
Is depending on a husband the new feminism?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 9:31 AM:green heron wrote on January 21, 2008 9:27 AM:
"Bill will hit back I gurantee you. And then the campaign truly will be all about him, as is his desire."
I agree, with this portion of your statement anyway. Bill will not take this lying down, and Hillary will be reduced to the sidelines while Obama and Bill duke it out into the SC primaries.
Or, if Hillary is smart, she will sideline Bill for that very reason. But I doubt she will, I don't think she has any control over him.
mark wrote on January 21, 2008 9:32 AM:This will probably come up at the debate tonight, which should be interesting. Obama needs to respond as he is doing. There really is no other choice, because when most dems see Clinton attacking or critizing Barack, they ASSUME he is telling the truth. He has a built in crediblity as a former president. The fact is that much of what he has said is demonstrably false. Barack needs to set the record straight and I am glad to see him taking this approach. He comes across well in this intereview imo. If he didn't respond aggressively, people would rightfully claim he was a weak candidate. This is a battle and he's fully engaged right now, which is where he needs to be.
Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 21, 2008 9:32 AM:I am happy to see Obama fight back for one simple reason: Bill Clinton is way out of line.
If 2004 taught us anything, its that when someone tells lies about you, or your positions or your character, you need to hit back quickly and forcefully. It is unconscionable to think that one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century is swift boating a candidate from his own party, but that is what is happening.
I appreciate the fact that this is 'Presidential politics' but I don't see how defending yourself against baseless attacks is weak. I think this is exactly what Obama should be doing.
hadenough wrote on January 21, 2008 9:33 AM:ajax
"Does it give voice to the residue of resentment and disgust a lot of loyal Democrats feel for the Clintons?"
You are in dreamland. Democrats vote for Hillary. Don't take my word for it check the last 2 contests. Then take a close look at the exit and/or entrance polls. Real Democrats vote for Hillary. 'democrats for a day' vote for obama.
"Or does it deflate Obama's claim to being a different kind of politician, who is above mudslinging and typical politics?"
That phony talking point was nothing but hot air from the minute senator shiny thing started his divide and conquer campaign. See obama’s emails sent to reporters as ‘not for attribution’ regarding senator Punjab. See obama’s ‘not for attribution’ emails regarding Bill Clinton.
kid oakland wrote on January 21, 2008 9:36 AM:I think Obama in a bind.
This is a good start, but I think he needs a Ted Kennedy or an Al Gore to finish this argument in public for all to hear...
so that Democrats as a whole can feel like this is not a squabble but a real issue for our party. (The 22nd Amendment debate is going to come up at some point here, everyone knows that.)
I wrote a reflection on the role Bill Clinton has played in Senator Clinton's campaign on my blog, k/o:
If you liked Josh's piece you might find that one resonates.
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 9:37 AM:Jeebus. This is hardly earthshattering stuff. He gave Bill a chance to heed the advice of the party elders and back the f**k off, and Bill ignored it, so Obama's just taking a page from Bill's political playbook: when they hit you, hit back hard and fast instead of letting it fester.
I love how Hillarites invariably proclaim that every move Obama makes is a horrendous misstep that will surely cause the scales to fall from the eyes of his benighted supporters and send them flocking to Hillary's banner. It is a source of endless amusement.
Obama ate pasta with red sauce in public? Ohhh, this will surely cost him the votes of the pasta and seafood devotees and end his uppity campaign once and for all. Obama used the men's room? Oooohh, this will surely cost him the vote of the gender neutral restroom movement supporters and end his pathetic little rebellion once and for all. Obama said people need to address their own empathy deficits and think a little more about the universality of the human experience? Ooohhh, he's just pandering to the sane people. This will surely cost him the votes of all the liberals who've been so completely driven off the deep end by the Reagan Revolution that they can no longer even bear to call themselves liberals. (Okay, actually, that last one may be true.)
They've been doing it since last Spring and yet, somehow, here he is with one more pledged delegate in the bag and Hillary, preparing to win in S.C. and closing the gap in the Supercalifragilistic Tuesday states.
But, hey, keep it up, folks. Wishful thinking is the stuff that defeat is made of.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 9:38 AM:I agree Mark. We need to see a different Obama tonight. An aggressive Obama that isn't afraid to directly confront Hillary on Bill's behaviors and words.
Obama is not the strongest debater in the world. It is not his particular platform. That said, Obama has conceded that SC is a must win for him. The people of SC will be watching this debate, and he must make a forceful case for why he deserves their vote.
Scott wrote on January 21, 2008 9:40 AM:As a major supporter of the Clintons in the past, even as a delegate in '96, but now as an Obama supporter, I have been very troubled by the Clinton campaign during the past two weeks for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I think it is an absolute breach of political protocol for a two-term former president and titular head of the party to play the role of attack dog against another candidate of his own party. It makes him look rather petty and mean-spirited. Not to mention, that he comes off sounding a bit unhinged these days. And it does bring up the very real question of what will his role be if Hillary is elected? Is he going to continue this and challenge every Republican who opposes her and/or her policy ideas to a duel on Pennsylvania Ave?
More troubling, however, is that the Clinton campaign obviously made a decision in the wake of Iowa that the only way to stop Obama was to play the racial card, which as results are showing seems to be working. So to win the nomination, the Clintons are effectively splitting the party and probably handing the election to John McCain. The young voters, independents, and even moderate Republicans who would have voted for Obama aren't going to vote for Hillary.
If the Clintons are willing to do this at this point in the process and potentially fatally divide the party, how can there be any hope of uniting the country? I truly fear that a Clinton II administration will be even more divisive that the first--but this time around, they will be the ones causing it, not the Republicans.
dft wrote on January 21, 2008 9:42 AM:You can't hide from the facts Mr. Obama. http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
This is Hillary's Factcheck site, but can the Obama supporters dispute the facts with real facts, not just mudslinging.
An idiot wrote: Real Democrats vote for Hillary. 'democrats for a day' vote for obama.'
If you ever draw your head out of your nether regions long enough to see daylight you might realize Hillary is unelectable. My prediction is that 3rd parties will receive the most votes ever in a national election. Meanwhile Hillary will go down in flames and a Republican will be in office. You're a real Hillarycrat alright-stupid, malleable, gullible, an unquestioning follower of authority.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:44 AM:"wake of Iowa that the only way to stop Obama was to play the racial card"
This is untrue. The Obama camp is the one playing the racial card; they even produced a secret memo about it. Don't lie about some of the most racially progressive leaders of our party.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 9:46 AM:NCSteve: ROFL >)
Interloper wrote on January 21, 2008 9:52 AM:Anonymous: You picked the right alias, otherwise you'd out yourself as a complete moron. Obama did not respond to racial insinuations for three days - the most horrendous of which was the "invisible hip black friend" quip in the UK's Guardian. He said nothing. Obama did not play the race card. He does not want to be branded the new Al Sharpton so he would never have played the race card. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you just as much a delusional sheep as the rest of your candidate's supporters.
hadenough wrote on January 21, 2008 9:53 AM:"bo wrote on January 21, 2008 9:43 AM:
An idiot wrote"
Facts are stubborn things skippy. Get over it.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 9:53 AM:Dft: Do you know what "irony" is? Look it up, or better yet, look at your post. Linking to Hillary's "facthub" to refute Obama's statements. That's rich. Shall I link to Obama's "facthub" to refute Hillary's "facthub". Hell, we need not debate, we can have each campaign's spin room's do it for us. Save everyone the time and the effort to get to the truth. We all know that the people paid to spin for the campaigns are paragons of virtue.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:53 AM:A little off topic. Maybe I missed it, but why didn't anyone report on Huckabee's "spiritual rape" comments? He said this during an interview with the Des Moines Register.
"My understanding of our relationship with God is that it's voluntary. If it ever becomes forced--to use a rather graphic term--it's the form of a spiritual rape."
Call me crazy, but isn't spiritual rape a great term for his candidacy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXBNl7RlwfQ
Bat Guano wrote on January 21, 2008 9:57 AM:There's a real stink of Bush/Rove attitude coming from most of the pro-Clinton comments here.
Keith wrote on January 21, 2008 9:58 AM:I think a lot of folks are overreacting here. Frankly, this isn't an attack by Obama as much as it is him setting the record straight. How that amounts to an attack is beyond me. Certainly that raises the spectre that Clinton is being less than forthright, but that places the oneous(sp) back on Clinton.
Also, for the person who posted the link to Fact Hub, you do realize that one of the supposed fact checks they post actually demonstrates that they are in fact play fast and loose with Obama's statements. Specifically, the "good idea" quote regurgitated by the Clintons and the actual quote from Obama. One of them is missing the part about "good".
Here's the fact check of the quotes the Clintons have taken liberty with and Obama's fact checking of them.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/20/clintons_making_statements_not.php
Final point and just a note of agreement. I think Obama cannot be the lead on this going forward. He needs to get his surrogates, principally John Kerry, out to rebut charges advanced by President Clinton. Both are considered honest brokers (albeit Clinton has far more gravitas) in the Democratic Party and it may neutralize, to some extent, any subsequent attacks.
Steve wrote on January 21, 2008 10:00 AM:This is such nonsense. And Josh's post at the main page is way off base, too.
Since Obama has no real track record, we ar elearning a lot about hims through the campaign. We have learned that he is a sore loser, and we have learned that he can't take a little heat. Obama is very weak. That's why he can't be our nominee -- he would never win. Too inexperienced, too weak.
virginia cynic wrote on January 21, 2008 10:02 AM:Caveat: I am an Edwards supporter who will switch to Obama here in the Va Primary.
I would like to see Obama use the Rove tacic of attaking what Hillary claims is her strength: her legal and white house experience, so that certainly includes taking on Bill and also showing that the hope campaign also will not be kicked around.
My perspective is that Bill was a pretty conservative democrat, who along w/Hillary failed on healthcare and forced democrats to defend him when he wasted the last two years of his presidency with his womanizing. Sure he was better than Hw and W but does that elevate him to Democratic icon? I sure hope not.
There is certainly no guarantee that Obama will be any more progressive than Hillary but at least I think we would not get the equivalent of another Hillary war vote.With Hillary and Bill I think that we have altogether too much of an idea what we will get, more DLC middle of the road and a further step toward dynasty politics.
So go get him Obama. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
It's about time Obama challenged Clinton. In fact, as long as Bill continues to open his mouth Obama ought to ask him to sit in on the next presidential debate. Any Hillary supporter who thinks having Bill fighting her battles is hallucinating if they think it will help her in the long run. I hope Obama keeps jabbing at Bill until he shut up.
Mark wrote on January 21, 2008 10:05 AM:The hard thing for BO is that the Clinton's best card is the victim card. When dems feel (rightly or wrongly) that the Clintons are being ganged up on, many instinctively rally to their side. I don't have this kind of sympathy for them personally, but many do. Many remember the 90's and have this inherent distrust of narratives that are "anti-Clinton". And the Clintons know this very well. Barack needs to retain the high ground. His speech yesterday in Atlanta was brilliant. That is what will win him the nomination. This other stuff is a distraction that unfortunately needs to be dealt with.
The difficult line for Barack is to respond aggressively without seeming to be attacking. I think this is a line he can walk, but it will not be easy.
Interloper wrote on January 21, 2008 10:07 AM:Steve: So allowing a former president mis-represent your positions, that would show the strength you're looking for?
anon wrote on January 21, 2008 10:07 AM:BOO FREAKIN HOOO BARACK.
pathetic, "mommy the big dawg is growling at me, help me mommy!"
barack heres a clue, this is NOTHING. attackingbyou for your stance on Iraq and on your ridiculously ambigous reagan comments is NOTHING, compared to what the pugs will do to you. They will run ads quesioning your religion, attacking your kenyan muslim family, attacking your former drug use. they will not be subtle they will not be on your side. They will destroy you.
Tell us barack, when the pugs run their first tv ad insinuating you are a muslim will you go GMA and moan about lying pugs? will you scream HOPE UNITY HOPE CHANGE! do you think it will help.
good lord man get a backbone, get a grip and get a clue.
Angry Vet wrote on January 21, 2008 10:09 AM:Steve-
Care to elaborate at all? Josh's post was about 3-4 paragraphs long, but yours are straight assertions without any backup.
Pretty typical trollish comments, to me... "sore loser, very weak, never win, too inexperienced."
And why is HRC not all of those things and more?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 10:12 AM:Mark wrote:
"The hard thing for BO is that the Clinton's best card is the victim card. When dems feel (rightly or wrongly) that the Clintons are being ganged up on, many instinctively rally to their side."
Huh? The CLINTONS (plural) can argue they are being ganged up on by Obama (singular)?
You are right in the sense that BO was sunk in NH when John Edwards counterattacked Hillary during the NH debate in response to Hillary's jab at Obama. That was wrongly interpreted, and perpetuated by the Hillary campaign, as the candidates ganging up on Hillary. A ludicrous meme that played the gender card and helped Hillary win women voters in NH.
Obama must confront Billary directly if he is to gain momentum and win the nomination. It may indeed backfire, but he has no choice. He is clearly being tag teamed by the dynamic duo and it is time to clarify for the American people, who exactly he's running against.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 10:17 AM:"He is clearly being tag teamed by the dynamic duo"
LOL
I can't believe that's the first time I've seen it put that way.
Wait. Does that mean Obama is the Joker?
Mark wrote on January 21, 2008 10:18 AM:Anon,
I think the implication from these remarks is that when the Reps misrepresent his views he will respond calmly and forcefully, as he is doing now. That's what I would expect of a candidate I am supporting, and that is what Barack is showing. If you think he will get "destroyed", that is your call, but personally I think Barack is very persuasive when he takes on this stuff directly. Hilary will also face a lot of shots in the general and if she is the nominee I would expect her to respond in much the same way.
Just watched the GMA piece and the wrap up discussion with George S, and they played the good ideas piece that Obama was talking about.
Let's just say, that Clinton looks like an ass distorting what Obama said and then following up with "I'm not making it up".
No amount of spin from the Clinton is going to be able to erase that image of Obama speaking and Clinton "paraphrasing" his words in a way that no reasonable person would consider accurate.
Tapper wrote on January 21, 2008 10:19 AM:Fact: Hussein Obama has voted for each and every Bushit Iraq War appropriation.
Fact: Hussein Obama voted for the Patriot Act.
Fact: Hussein Obama openly recruited and campaigned with proudly homophobic "ministers".
Fact: Hussein Obama decided that "fairy tale" is a racist insult to play his race cards.
Fact: Well, they do go on and on.
The only real question is: was Obama a lying hypocrite before or only after his sleazy Rezco deals?
I went back to find the comment and the response. The one that Clinton lied about and Obama didn't say. I can see President Clintons take on it and I think that Obama was making a negative comment on President Clintons presidency - and shouldn't be surprised that he would take fire for it. I think that he needed to clarify what he meant when he made the comment. it did seem very negative about the democratic party, even if it wasn't his intention.
In an editorial board meeting with a Reno, Nevada, newspaper last week, Senator Barack Obama said what turned out to be ammunition for rival campaigns. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama told the newspaper. “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”Today Senator Obama responded to their criticisms at his Columbia, South Carolina rally, saying his statements have been mischaracterized - just another Washinton “trick.”
“I didn’t’ say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies,” Obama explained. “What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward. So when I see, you know, Senator Clinton or President Clinton distort my words, say somehow that I was saying Republican (sic) the only ones who had good ideas since 1980 – then that is not a way to move the debate forward.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 10:25 AM:I look at it this way:
In the run-up to Nevada, I heard more about Bill and his attacks on Obama than I heard about the caucuses themselves.
While Hillary's campaign still ended up winning the caucuses, in that same period, as far as I can tell, the national polls continued to show a narrowing race between Obama and Clinton leading up to Feb 5th.
Now, losing the popular vote in Nevada isn't a good storyline. But, by using the delegate-story to muddle that result, and hte more surprising GOP race in SC, Obama's campaign has seized the opportunity to create a new narrative for the week leading up to SC. And that narrative will be: are Bill Clinton's attacks unfair and over-the-top?
There's no way that plays out well for the Clinton's, IMO. Instead of the coming news cycles being about her campaign regaining its footing as a frontrunner, its' going to be about how ugly those attacks are/were.
And obviously, that's a story the campaign thinks plays well for them, and what's more, as noted above, there's plenty of evidence that it does play well for them.
In effect, Bill and Hillary may be hoisted on their petard, here.
I think doing this interview now was a master-stroke. A week of bad coverage for the Clintons (now plural!) in spite of their Nevada win, followed by (presumably) an Obama win in SC...that's a good way to finish up the run-up to Fe b 5th
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 10:26 AM:Tapper:
Fact: Your post is off topic.
Fact: You are a Hillbot who is incapable of sustaining a coherent argument.
Fact: Piss off.
I agree with Mark that Obama has his work cut out for him. That Bill has inserted himself into the campaign in an unseemly way and is unfairly distorting Obama's record may seem clear to us in the blogosphere, but remember: Clinton is an incredibly popular president -- and was even more popular when he was being lynched over the Lewinsky affair.
Sure, he lies, but people don't seem to mind it when he does.
The only possible positive for Obama is that people might look on lying about fellow Democrats a little differently than lying about an extramarital affair.
Again, Mark is right. Obama can't become too heated -- not because he'll seem like an angry black man, but because he'll seem like Ken Starr.
Michael A wrote on January 21, 2008 10:32 AM:Matt, that's an excellent idea, mr. bill should sit in on the next debate. We are looking at a third term for him, so why not? He gets to parade around lying and distorting without any accountability whatsoever.
colonpowwow wrote on January 21, 2008 10:34 AM:Three points:
1. Blowing this up into an "issue" is another example of the media injecting a "controversy" (See TPM's posts re that Bill should perhaps be more dignified, that is, shut up and stand in the background with his hands folded, because he's the titular leader of the entire Democratic Party). Gosh, couldn't tell that by the amount of Bill Clinton hatred constantly posted here in comments. I sometimes think Newt and Honest Tom are trolling here.
2. To call into question Bill's rights to participate in the process exactly in the same manner as Michelle and Elizabeth do, is downright . . . need I even say it (?) . . . rhymes with SonAmerican.
3. As others have pointed out, we voters will comment (with out votes) on whether we think it's appropriate and useful or not, thank you. How're they doing so far?
E.S. wrote on January 21, 2008 10:36 AM:I heard Hillary this morning on MSNBC and she said both she and Obama are fortunate to have stong passionate spouses. That is true. Only Obama's spouse hasn't cheated on him.
Bill is very unseemly in his misstatements about Obama or just plain lying....
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:37 AM:The recent dust ups with Bill Clinton point out the need for some serious public reporting and discussion about his responsbilities as a former president and limitations of law or propriety on how he involves and conducts himself in partisan campaigning. Jonathan Alter in Newsweek has reported that Dem leaders like Kennedy and Emanuel are concerned http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385. Josh Marshall on TPM also has some thought and insight: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064242.php . I hope with Obamas on comments reported here that an informed public debate is beginning.
In most areas of organized society the risks of dishonest nepotism and giving unfair advantage are addressed by high standards involving conflict of interest and rules for recusal. Does the fact that Bill Clinton is married to a candidate absolve him from all conventional standards and limitations addressing honesty and propriety? Does the fact of his marriage mean Bill can disregard long held traditions of former presidents not engaging on behalf of a candidate in presidential primaries? George H.W. Bush managed not to criticize McCain publicly in 2000. Is there a difference in Bill Clinton advocating for his wife based on her merits, and his aggressive, some would say distorted, attacks on her chief rival? As a former president supported with tax dollars, what responsibilities does Bill Clinton have to the nation? As the titular head of the Democratic party, what responsibilities of fairness does he have to all candidates in primaries?
Bill Clinton's claim that both he and Chelsea witnessed voter intimidation by Union officials in precinct hotel in Nevada must be fully investigated. It should not be difficult to determine specific time and place and likely culprits. IF it happened as Bill Clinton describes, actions should be taken against the Union and its representatives. IF it did not happen, and a former president of the United States fabricated the claim to try to create an unfair advantagefor his wife in the caucus, and to damage a Union whose sin was simply not endorsing Mrs. Clinton, this is alarming and actions should be taken. I hope the media will not let this claimed incident drop without a full investigation and public accounting for those in the wrong, irrespective of their positions of power.
There are also many questions about Bill Clinton's role in his wife's campaign that I have not seen addressed by the media. Is Bill paid by the campaign? Is his travel paid by the campaign? Is he paid by his ''foundation"? Is his travel paid by his "foundation." Are foundation funds (and contributions) being used for political purposes? Is this legal? Does the Clinton campaign reimburse the government for cost of Bill's Secret Service details on campaign trips, and cost of secret service screening of campaign events when he is involved?
Because the nation is being asked to elect Mrs. Bill Clinton as president, we really need far more information about former president Bill Clinton's role in the election process and prospective role in her administration. These are not details for voters to learn only after choices are made.
Oh give me a break with the whole Rezko thing. If anyone knows chicago, you'll know the lots are really small. The vacant lot next to Barack's house was for sale. He has 2 little kids you know, they like to run. Anyway he buys the lot, with no way of knowing the guy he bought if from was a shady character. When it was revealed to him. He sold the property and gave up the money. Case closed.
The funny thing is, the Clinton's are hard pressed to try to dig up some dirt on the most ethical man in Washington. They can't find ANYTHING but this. This is really really really old news. Obama is not mentioned anywhere in Rezko's indictment because he had nothing to do with it.
party-of-one wrote on January 21, 2008 10:39 AM:Oops. The Annonymous post above beginning "The recent dust ups with Bill Clinton point out the need for some serious public reporting and discussion..." is my post. Too quick on the "SEND"
mary wrote on January 21, 2008 10:40 AM:I forgot to include President Clinton response.
President Clinton also weighed in, saying Obama “said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks thinks our ideas are better, or the Republicans had all the good ideas.”
dougom wrote on January 21, 2008 10:41 AM:1. Obama is "overreacting?" Pres. Clinton has been hammering him, and Sen. Clinton hasn't exactly been sitting on the sidelines, either. He should just sit back and take it? Then the people who are currently bemoaning his direct response would bemoan his *lack* of response, and start talking about Sen. Kerry and Swift Boating. Talk about lose-lose!
2. I've been appalled at how many people--not the candidates; I expect it from them--have seemingly willfully misunderstood Obama's Reagan comments. The first time I heard them, and then read them, I thought the same thing: "Reagan, like him or not, had a transformative effect on national politics, partly as a response to Jimmy Carter's "malaise." Now we are stuck in a Bush malaise, and the *Democrats* have a similar chance to be transformative."
Perhaps it's because I've been thinking along similar lines. In 1980, the Democrats were ripe for the taking. They had been entrenched in Congress for a long time, and were fat, dumb, and happy. Reagan kicked their butts and started a revolution from the right. No matter what you think of Reagan, you simply can't deny that he had an enormous impact and won re-election in a huge landslide.
Now we could be at a similar point. And Obama was clearly implying that he is the Democrat's answer in 2008 for the Republican's Reagan in 1980. You may disagree or not, but the implication seemed clear. To me, anyway. But like with Bill Clinton on the right, mentioning the word "Reagan" on the left causes many people to simply see red.
Sure, the right-wing will use every dirty trick against either candidate they can. But personally, I'm ready to stop reading about the Clinton's past peccadilloes, and am up for a new story line. I mean, jeez people, do you *really* want an election where the right-wing rehashes all that 90s-era crap all over *again*? I've had enough, myself.
Wolf1739 wrote on January 21, 2008 10:43 AM:Since when does pointing out that someone is lying constitute "mudslinging" or "going negative"?
If Obama's camp started pointing out things like Whitewater or Vince Foster or Travelgate or Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or the multitude of other skanks that Bill Clinton couldn't keep his hands off. If Obama's camp started pointing out that people will refuse to vote for another Clinton or another Bush in the White House. If Obama's camp started pointing out that Hilary is simply George W. Bush in a pant suit. If Obama's camp started pointing out how chummy Bill Clinton has gotten with George H.W. Bush. If Obama's camp started pointing out that the US Constitution forbids more than two terms for a President and the republicans would embroil a new Clinton White House with lawsuits challenging any engagement or perceived power sharing with Bill Clinton. If Obama's camp started pointing out that we have no reason to believe that a second Clinton White House would be any less scandal laden than the first one. Then that would be mudslinging and negative attacks.
If Barack Obama wished to go negative on the Clintons, he has nearly 16 years of very public history that he could just simply remind people about.
Has anyone else noticed that the Repugs were ALL talking smack about Hilary until it looked like she might not be the candidate? They shut up completely when it became obvious that she is the one they ALL want to run against. The negative attack ads were written a decade ago and they're still relevant. They don't attack Obama because they don't have anything on him and when they realized that they were showing their hand and tipping the democtratic nomination they ALL shut up at the same time. When democrats forget what they are up against in the republican attack machine they hand them exactly what the republicans need to win.
KFB wrote on January 21, 2008 10:45 AM:The Clintons have used the National Democratic Party as their own personal playground and money machine, as well as a king making and competition slaying devise since 1992 and look where it got us. We are talking about tears, two for one presidents, fairy tales, change and Monica.
Bill Clinton is acting like a junk yard dog, a demeanor not flattering for an ex-President or desirable for a potential first spouse.
This whole primary election system needs to be abolished. No merchant in his right mind would beat up his product before sending it to market, yet, before every election the political parties do just that. They strip their own candidates of every shred of character, dignity and money and then they want us to vote for the one they did not kill.
Tapper wrote on January 21, 2008 10:45 AM:I just love it when the only answer to criticism of their GreatBlackOne that the Obamaniacs have is to splutter and blubber and Wah Wah Wah!
"It's not fair!"
By the way, where's the proof of all those Nevada Clinton "crimes" that Obama promised us?
Hmmmmm?
Just more LIES from the Obama camp.
This is the funny thing about Clinton suppoters. Any attempt to rebut their methods is instantly characterized as "hatred", ala the Reps of the 90's. Apparently they think they have carte blanche to act in any way they desire, but not so. You can't just call all oppositon "haters". Sorry, doesn't work that way. At some point you actually have to deal with the facts as they are being presented to you.
Also, no one is denying Bill's right to participate in the process. At least, no one from Barack's campaign. So that is a red herring on your part, colonpow.
colonpowwow wrote on January 21, 2008 10:46 AM:E.S. wrote on January 21, 2008 10:36 AM:
"I heard Hillary this morning on MSNBC and she said both she and Obama are fortunate to have stong passionate spouses. That is true. Only Obama's spouse hasn't cheated on him."
Gosh, I wish I knew the Obama's as well as you do. They're a very nice couple apparently. I just haven't had that much time to get to know them since they just surfaced on the national level a little over a year ago - him as the part-time Senator from Illinois and her as his partner on the campaign trail.
I always liked Bill Clinton as President. My vote for him in '96 was the one time in my adult life I was able to vote for President and be happy with my vote.
Every day that passes during this campaign, however, lessens his appeal. It is problematic having him be the spouse of a leading candidate. How can he campaign for her and still give honor to his role as a former President and de facto leader of the party? In my opinion, he's doing a horrible job of it. If he must campaign for Hillary, he should be touting her record and not whining about the media and not distorting Obama's statements and record. He's coming across petty and dishonest.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:48 AM:It is too early, West Coast time, for me to figure out if I think this is good or bad politics, but I know that Obama is speaking the clear unvarnished truth. "Bad Bill" has been running amok, distorting, misrepresenting, and flat out lying.
It takes guts to take on the former Pres of your own party. Those who think Obama is weak should reexamine their assumptions. Whether the lame MSM will actually have the guts to call the Clintons on all the "dirty tricks" they have pulled in the last couple of weeks is another question. Whether the ill informed voting public will catch on in time to the political "slight of hand" that the Clintons are performing is the ultimate question.
What really amazes me are the powers of self-deception that have allowed so many HRC supporters to "deny," "justify," or "minimize" the actions of their preferred candidate.
"Lying is bad, believing your own lies is dangerous."
upper left wrote on January 21, 2008 10:49 AM:It is too early, West Coast time, for me to figure out if I think this is good or bad politics, but I know that Obama is speaking the clear unvarnished truth. "Bad Bill" has been running amok, distorting, misrepresenting, and flat out lying.
It takes guts to take on the former Pres of your own party. Those who think Obama is weak should reexamine their assumptions. Whether the lame MSM will actually have the guts to call the Clintons on all the "dirty tricks" they have pulled in the last couple of weeks is another question. Whether the ill informed voting public will catch on in time to the political "slight of hand" that the Clintons are performing is the ultimate question.
What really amazes me are the powers of self-deception that have allowed so many HRC supporters to "deny," "justify," or "minimize" the actions of their preferred candidate.
"Lying is bad, believing your own lies is dangerous."
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:52 AM:Mary said "The funny thing is, the Clinton's are hard pressed to try to dig up some dirt on the most ethical man in Washington."
Good point and good post. Maybe Hillary and her Rovian attack dogs can dig deeper and find more Kindergarten essays in Indonesia.
With her wins in NH and Nevada, and all the press spin about finding her real voice and momentum, Hillary's campaign at is lapse into vintage Rove-Bush dirty politics, looks and sounds VERY DESPERATE. Obama is a truth teller, a visionary, a uniter. Billary, Inc. has no idea how to run against him and win. Just throw as much mud as possible, tell as many lies as the media will print and hope some of it sticks.
Obama has principles, judgment and instincts for true leadership that will help him overcome whatever the Clintons throw at him. He's about constructive change, and it begins with rejecting the Bush-Clinton politics of lies and division.
AJ wrote on January 21, 2008 10:58 AM:The Audacity of Whining!
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 10:58 AM:I'm glad he is taking Bill head on. Bill is the source of Hillary's popularity. Surveys have shown that more people support her because she was married to Bill that because of her "experience". About half of Democrats say they are more favorable toward Hillary because she is Bill's wife. Anyone who thinks that Hillary would be a senator, let alone a presidential nominee, let alone the frontrunner, without riding on Bill's coattails has been sniffing glue.
To have an ex-president on your side, constantly lashing out at your opponents, spreading all sorts of lies, that is the mother of all advantages. Of course Obama has to take him on, for people who have been paying attention Bill's behavior and statements have been pretty sad and despicable. He has acted more like an angry child than a former president. For those of us who have been paying attention we've seen this and we know he is full of crap. Too many people however, just hear what he said, and just assume he is right (the 90s taught them nothing apparently). Obama needs to hit him and hit him hard. Obviously Obama won't hit him like Bill has went after him, Obama won't resort to lies, or personal attacks. Obama has too much integrity to stoop to Bill and Hillary's level, but I think hitting Bill back on these false attacks will help. Bill's reputation and popularity among Democrats slips every time he goes off like this, and granted he is still quite popular, if Obama can make it clear how Bill has been lying and acting like a child this whole time, the Clinton brand will be permanently damaged (not because of false attacks, but as a result of their own actions and nasty campaign). Not to mention if Hillary gets the nomination the Clintons are going to be branded losers when she gets destroyed by McCain and loses our party the congressional elections.
Basically I'm saying that the Clintons are doing a lot of damage to the party. And if you can't see that, you are blind.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:03 AM:Wolf1739 said "...If Obama's camp started pointing out things like Whitewater or Vince Foster or Travelgate or Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones..."
We agree, it would be unfair and dirty politics for Obama to mention us.
Signed:
Paula Jones
Monica Lewinsky
Harsha Scott
Linda Jones
Sally Perdue
Kathleen Wiley
Gennifer Flowers
Dolly Kyle Browning
Juanita Broaddrick
Susan McDougal
numerous White House staffers (wink, wink)
Denise Rich
Beth Dozoretz
Belinda Stronach
Segolene Royal
an unnamed "forty-something divorcee in Chappaqua, N.Y"
AND...
Huma Abedin... oops I should be on a different "list" hehe
Wolf1739 wrote on January 21, 2008 10:43 AM:
"If Barack Obama wished to go negative on the Clintons, he has nearly 16 years of very public history that he could just simply remind people about."
Thanks for making our point re so-called Dems here attacking the Clintons using discredited right wing talking points.
Did you know Hillary and Bill murdered Vince Foster!?!?!?
You could ask your soulmate, Jerry Falwell, but unfortunately, he's as dead as your line of "attack" on the Clintons.
Yeah - we know all that stuff. Those people who once were your political enemies told us all about it again and again and again. BIG YAWN. Please, Senator Obama, listen to Wolf1739, ignore your seasoned and excellent campaign managers, and bring it on.
Pepp wrote on January 21, 2008 11:17 AM:
What a joke, last week he lost NH because the Clintons where racist this week he lost NV because Bill is being mean to him. Gove me a break what a loser. Whaha boo hoo. This contest is over.
Is this TPM or Free Republic?
Honestly, the CDS exhibited by many of the Obama "supporters" here is pretty extraordinary.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:20 AM:colonpowpow,
You are both woefully ignorant and irresponsible to invite anyone to "bring it on" regarding the Clintons. Just like Bushe arrogant taunting of terrorist, you have no idea what you could be unleashing. The Clintons' dishonesty, immoratlity, greed, and betryal of friends and associates is unparalleled in American politics. This has nothing to do with wild accusations about "Vince Foster" or Hillary's paranoid "right wing conspiracy" mime.
If the Clintons and their naiive supporters like you colonpowwow insist on making this campaign about Rovian style distortions, lies and character assisination, the Clintons will lose. The truth about them will be sufficient to deny Hillary the White House and any further role in politics.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:24 AM:Anonymous: "The Clintons' dishonesty, immoratlity, greed, and betryal of friends and associates is unparalleled in American politics."
Go back to Free Republic.
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 11:27 AM:dougom -- Absolutely right. And today Krugman goes after Obama, latching onto a few words in the Reagan interview to paint Obama as deluded about the Reagan years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
In doing so, he actually leaves out Obama's criticisms of Republican economic policy.
What can you say? Krugman ... I love the guy, but he's pretty clearly ignoring huge chunks of that interview that don't jibe with his thesis. Perhaps he didn't read the thing the whole way through.
As I've said before, Krugman, like many lefty bloggers, is heavily invested in a political theory of the need for continued struggle against ideological opposites. But these are just the kind of struggles that never end. And when you grind one opponent into the dust, all you do is build up resentment. (Why is it lefty bloggers can apply this argument to explain the rise of terrorism but not far-right conservatism?)
random wrote on January 21, 2008 11:29 AM:Nothing in Obama's past thus far revealed suggests that he lies. NOTHING!
Can Hillary supporters honestly say that about the Clintons? of course not. There is a huge public record documenting their lies over decades.
When it comes to honesty and trust, Hillary just can't compete. We don't need another presidency built on lies, family connections and corporate dollars.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:33 AM:Annonymous 11:24,
I have no idea what your frequent references to Free Republic mean. I assume you are paid to advertise another site. Lame!
Why do Hillary's attack dogs think they can bully people into supporting her?
Maria wrote on January 21, 2008 11:34 AM:Gotta say the Hillary defenders here are sounding pretty unhinged.
Obama needs to speak out when the Clinton slime machine goes into action, twisting his words and lying through their teeth.
foxx wrote on January 21, 2008 11:41 AM:What is interesting to me--I have heard Obama say these things before--is that he asserts lies and misrepresentation but doesn't detail what they are. He just keeps saying he was against the war. Bill has never denied that Obama made a speech against the war, he has simply listed the ways Obama has supported the war since then. Not of course something Obama wants to discuss.
Meanwhile Obama himself said very disparaging things about Clinton in his Reagan remarks, and very close and prominent surrogates have accused Hillary of not caring about Hispanics, being "shameless," not caring about blacks and Katrina, just as a partial list. Obama will make vague excuses, talk about unity, and then do it again, and then talk about how he unlike Hillary is running a clean uplifting campaign. He has never fired anyone or even had anyone apologize for any of this stuff.
It may be all politics, but why are people buying these smokescreens?
Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 11:43 AM:I'm not going to go as far as some and say I won't vote for Clinton, because I think she'll be pretty good in some ways. And by the time November rolls around, I'm betting I'll probably forget about all this rancour.
Still ... I'm glad that Obama is standing up and being counted. Sure, he's got to finesse the whole anger thing (which will only make him look better if Bill gets his red face on), but it shows strength of conviction, which is great in a president.
Also, I hope he'll take the chance to start tacking to the left on some of his rhetoric. And talking up his policy a bit. Remember, liberals in NH broke for Hillary. I like his message, I just don't think the base is ready for it -- not in a primary, at least.
Leave the centrist stuff for the general election.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:47 AM:Anonymous: "I have no idea what your frequent references to Free Republic mean."
Free Republic is a website populated by right wing wackos. The anti-Clinton nonsense spewed by Freepers (that is, the denizens of Free Republic) is materially identical to the anti-Clinton nonsense spewed by Obama supporters here.
Obama supporters sound less like Democrats and progressives -- and more like Republican operatives. The anti-Clinton venom would be perfectly at home among the Freeper set.
"Why do Hillary's attack dogs think they can bully people into supporting her?"
And why do Obama's attack dogs think that tearing down the Clintons is going to make their candidate more attractive in the eyes of Democrats?
Steve wrote on January 21, 2008 11:50 AM:If Obama was attacking Bill for saying negative things about him when they were true, I would call Obama a whiner. But the fact is Bill has flat our lied. You can't take a sentence out of a paragraph and say it represents the whole paragraph. It's obvious Bill has been distorting words, leaving out things that are convenient to him, when giving these speeches. If your going to lie or stretch the truth, you deserve to be called out on it.
Gee wrote on January 21, 2008 12:05 PM:Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.
He is entitled to his own opinions. He is not entitled to his own facts.
The Big Dog's attacks have been very effective; it is both tactically right and entirely justified for Obama to hit back in this way, and -- as those of us who remember '92 clearly will recall -- if the show were on the other foot, that's exactly how the Big Dog would have responded, and did.
Gee wrote on January 21, 2008 12:07 PM:I meant of course if the shoe were on the other foot.
Scientific wrote on January 21, 2008 12:07 PM:To Anonymous, 11:47am:
So, I guess it's fundamentally impossible to advocate for another Democratic candidate without sounding like a Republican. Get over yourselves, people.
Obama had his record assailed by someone else with falsehoods and exaggerations that are EASILY debunked, and he defended his record. How is this at all controversial?
And as for those asserting that Obama needs to "grow up", the most mature people I know wouldn't resort to lies and distortions to win a job, for themselves or their spouse.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:09 PM:for Anonymous 11:47
I am a lifelong Democrat and would support any of the Democratic contenders except for Mrs. Bill Clinton. I will never vote for her, ever. She is an unqualified, dishonest warmonger.
Writing me off as "right wing wacko "with millions of other Democrats who cannot support Hillary under any circumstance is dillusional. Hillary supporters will soon need to come to the realization that if she lies and distorts her way to the Democratic nomination, the party will be too divided for her to be elected, and may be too divided to survive.
Many many Democrats will not only not vote for Hillary but will work energetically against her with time and dollars. Bloomberg or McCain seem to be the options to consider.
Why do Hillary supporters think they can bully people into supporting her with insults and disinformation?
LJ wrote on January 21, 2008 12:16 PM:Bill Clinton is a liar. He's willing to slime a good man because he's morally bankrupt and lusts for power and attention. I'm glad Obama is calling him out on it.
random wrote on January 21, 2008 12:17 PM:Anonymous 11:47,
Why do your characterize all postings raising genuine concerns about Hillary and the Clintons as "attacks" by Obama supporters. I lost all respect for the Clintons long before I even hear of Obama. Currently, I would support Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kusinich, Dodd, my local precinct captain, any legitmate Democrat ... BUT NEVER HILLARY.
There are many Democrats who feel this way, and Bill's attacks are making more feel that way. Hillary's supporters bring two words to mind: ostrich, sand.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on January 21, 2008 12:21 PM:I think Bill has gone too far and a major backlash is mounting. Even people who support Hillary cannot condone his angry unjustified attacks. This is about Bill's frustration playing second fiddle and he's lashing out. Once again, the Clintons need counseling for the good of the nation.
blackstar wrote on January 21, 2008 12:31 PM:colonpowwow:
(See TPM's posts re that Bill should perhaps be more dignified, that is, shut up and stand in the background with his hands folded, because he's the titular leader of the entire Democratic Party). Gosh, couldn't tell that by the amount of Bill Clinton hatred constantly posted here in comments. I sometimes think Newt and Honest Tom are trolling here.
--------------
so Josh Marshall now = Newt Gingrich because he questioned how helpful a Clinton's actions are to the Democratic party as a whole.
that's certainly not a right-wing mentality....
Anna wrote on January 21, 2008 12:31 PM:Michelle Obama is campaigning properly as a candidate spouse. Bill Clinton is campaigning for re-election. He is the symbolic leader of the Democratic Party. He should know better than to impede a fair primary election. Hillary Clinton should have to run on her own two legs.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:36 PM:Scientific: "I guess it's fundamentally impossible to advocate for another Democratic candidate without sounding like a Republican."
No. It's only fundamentally impossible to attack another Democrat USING REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS without sounding like a Republican.
One poster, for example, wrote that "The Clintons' dishonesty, immoratlity, greed, and betryal of friends and associates is unparalleled in American politics."
That's a GOP attack line if ever there was one. These threads have been full of that kind of right wing garbage.
You also wrote that "Obama had his record assailed by someone else with falsehoods and exaggerations..."
Obama has never been able (or willing) to explain why the criticisms are false or exaggerated. Obama has merely asserted it as if it's axiomatic. And Obama's supporters, being the sheep that they are, simply fall in line. Looking at the record, Clinton's criticisms have been fairly accurate.
evie wrote on January 21, 2008 12:38 PM:The Clintons, the media, and many bloggers are grossly underestimating the negative impact B. Clinton's conduct will have on our party and her chances in the GE. Both the Clintons are responsible for a dishonest, gutter-ridden campaign, but WJC is over-the-top so.
Josh thinks he couldn't be more of a diehard Clinton supporter? Think again. That's always been me -- 100% supportive of Clinton. And there are many, many others who supported and defended him through thick and thin the last 15 years. To have them campaign against Obama as if he were Ken Starr -- to demonstrably LIE, repeatedly, is beyond the pale.
If Obama loses, I'm sure he will make an impassioned plea for everyone to come together, but I won't forget. I will never trust the Clintons again. I may have no other choice than to vote for Clinton in the GE, but I can assure you, if there is a reasonable alternative (one where the right judges will be chosen), I'll use it.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:42 PM:Anonymous: "Writing me off as "right wing wacko "with millions of other Democrats who cannot support Hillary under any circumstance is dillusional."
It's not "dillusional" -- it's accurate.
You're using right wing talking points. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out. The crazed Hillary-haters sound like Freepers.
And your position on Mrs. Clinton is pretty dumb, if you are what you claim to be (a lifelong Democrat). You're basically saying that you'd rather elect a Republican that will give you NONE of the Supreme Court picks you want and NONE of the progressive legislation you want...just to spite a Democrat that's voted the wrong way once or twice.
Republicans have figured out that their 80% friend isn't their 20% enemy. Until the left catches up to this pretty reasonable logic, they'll continue to lose elections.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:47 PM:random: "Why do your characterize all postings raising genuine concerns about Hillary and the Clintons as "attacks" by Obama supporters."
I don't characterize ALL postings raising genuine concerns as attacks. But I DO characterize ALL postings that are actually attacks as attacks.
It's one thing to disagree with Mrs. Clinton's votes in the Senate. It's one thing to compare and contrast her proposals with Obama's. But that's not what most people here are doing.
Look as this thread. It is chock-full of nonsensical, cartoonish, unfair attacks on the Clintons. One would think the pair strangled your childhood pets.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:47 PM:Obama is making a big mistake by attacking Bill Clinton because lots of blacks love them some bill clinton... obama don't make them turn against you.
ShutupNvote wrote on January 21, 2008 12:49 PM:
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH this week I lost because Bill is being mean to me, this site has a toooo funnnnnnnnnnnny photo of this fight...
What the problem is, is that Senator Obama seems to believe he is losing because of others, because they are racist or because they are the old guard or becuse they are cranky boomers or because they are being mean to him and that is not he himself we are not enamored with him…..that is misguided……
Elizabeth Edwards looked feisty, Bill Clinton manages to look ugly. Bill going mano a mano with Obama makes Hillary look like a befuddled bystander, not a "good cop" to Bill's "bad cop". I can't help but think Bill Clinton is slipping.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 1:04 PM:Well all this is rather amazing...
Bill Clinton taking on Chris Wallace, he's the Big Dog.
Bill Clinton taking on Obama, he's the Big Liar?
Bill Clinton hurting the Democratic Party?
David Broder on line 1. Line 1!!!!!
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:04 PM:Yippee...now the Dems got their own personal Jesus Freak!
Jane wrote on January 21, 2008 1:07 PM:Obama is doing a few things here:
1) He is defending himself against attack which any strong candidate must do.
2) He is calling into question the credibility of Bill Clinton and his statements without needing to remind us of Bill Clinton's problem with the truth (didn't inhale, didn't have sexual relations, etc.)
3) He is calling into question the propriety of a former President engaging in dishonest attacks against a Democratic candidate, rather than simply supporting his wife.
4) He is legitimizing Bill Clinton's role as an advocate for his wife while rather than an as attack dog sent after other Democrats.
5) And this is the most brilliant: While the Clinton campaign has tried to make an issue of Obama's race - making him the black candidate who will will annoy voters with all the usual "black whining about racism", Obama is trying to make an issue of Bill Clinton - putting Bill Clinton in the news more so than Hillary and making him the "true candidate" in the shadows, which will annoy all those people who don't want a vote for Hillary to be a vote for Bill - he who had his two turns in the White House already. People will ask, "Why am I hearing about Bill Clinton? Who is running for President any way? Can't Hillary stand on her own two feet?"
The more we here about Bill in the national media, the more this will seem like the man is running for a third term.
chigger wrote on January 21, 2008 1:31 PM:Remember Bill pointing with THAT finger in the "Give me a break!" clip? Very reminiscent of how he used the same finger when making the point "I did not have sex with that woman..". Ick! If I were Bill, I'd hide that hand in my pocket. But then, he'd probably be playing with his loose change.
one wrote on January 21, 2008 1:38 PM:The following observed that Bill is over whatever top your prefer:
Newshour(PBS Mark Shields), Inside Washington(PBS); Fox on Sunday( The Whole Crew, Yes, Kristol too), etc. Diversity you say! On this one Josh was a bit slow on the draw. Narturally, all of these folks are not sucking and jiving, one might say!
Yes, I did forget Newsweek!
Finally, is Vernon Jordan in South Carolina, and if so why?
willyjsimmons - the point is, Obama is not Chris Wallace. And he's not Ken Starr. And he's not Newt Gingrich. And he is not one of the myriad of equally slimy Republicans. Obama is a good Democrat, and as a good Dem myself, it's completely unacceptable to me for the Clintons to repeatedly use lies and dirty politics to beat another Dem.
dougom wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM:Nigel: thanks. Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness. I'm not attacking Obama; I'm not attacking Sen. Clinton; I must be a loon of some kind!
Sigh. If this thread has shown anything, it's that these kinds of tactics (which have come from both camps as well as the Edwards camp) are nothing but divisive. I know this is politics and we can't all sing kumbaya (and I always hated that song), but do we really want to ditch a rare moment to seize a possible long-term transformative moment for the left with internecine sniping?
I am really hoping that it's just the heat of the most recent primaries/caucuses. But I fear it isn't.
phil james wrote on January 21, 2008 2:40 PM:Hillary is playing that age-old anti-feminist game of "let's you and him fight". She get's to stand on the sidelines, looking almost aloof while the combatants bloody each other. She waves her delicate fan to cool her slightly blushing face. As someone above so well pointed out, in this game she is no feminist nor does she do herself credit as an independent women and potential leader of the free world if she has to have Bill do her fighting for her. (And beyond that, the White House really has room for only one massive ego at a time.) Obama is in a serious bind here because the dueling gentlemen scenario just doesn't allow for direct attacks on Hillary. By attacking Obama, Bill is defending her honor (Bill being such a Galahad don't you know).
Jack Frost wrote on January 21, 2008 3:00 PM:You people have made every single case imaginable for Barack Obama's justifiability. Of course it doesn't help when the author of the articles here on Talking Points Memo is obviously skewed as well.. " it was a precinct captain not someone from the campaign who told people to switch parties to vote " as if the difference is really significant?!
It turns out today that homophobic people are endorsing the Obama campaign, Obama himself attacked Bill Clinton by alluding to Reagan's superior party "of ideas " comment and saying that Clinton didn't compare, Obama's own ads in Nevada claim that Hillary was "shameless" to hispanic voters- he is not a pure, savior candidate that is above political slime! you people are ridiculous for falling for his kum-bah-yah meme... you people sound like republicans
RAOUL BAYONE wrote on January 21, 2008 3:16 PM:Got Surrogates? Obama should not be attacking Bill at all. He should let his people do it. Attacking a loved former President can make him look bad. It works for Hill,Doesn't it?
phil james wrote on January 21, 2008 4:02 PM:OTOH Raoul it seems to me Obama is indeed drawing a sharp contrast between his directness in responding to criticism compared with Hillary's letting her "surrogates" do it. One candidate is being forthright and direct. The other is being a typical underhanded, mealymouthed, low-down, mendacious, two-faced politician who is simply asking the country to support her in seeking the position to which she has become entitled by virtue of the fact that her husband held the position for two terms and is stumping for her as one of her many surrogates.
colonpowwow wrote on January 21, 2008 4:42 PM:blackstar wrote on January 21, 2008 12:31 PM:
"colonpowwow:
"so Josh Marshall now = Newt Gingrich because he questioned how helpful a Clinton's actions are to the Democratic party as a whole."
Just a suggestion, but if you are going to quote my post to make a point ("so Josh Marshall now = Newt Gingrich") - perhaps you should actually read what I wrote first.
I wrote: Gosh, couldn't tell that by the amount of Bill Clinton hatred constantly POSTED here IN COMMENTS. I sometimes think Newt and Honest Tom are trolling here.
I wasn't talking about Josh, I was commenting that the Clinton-haters here don't consider Bill Clinton to be the leader of the Party - and you parrot Newt and Honest Tom's tired discredited anti-liberal progressive talking points.
Clear enough now?
I like Hillary and Barack. I think both of them would be great for America. We can only have one at the top. I am willing to give Barack the slight edge because America have had the Clinton"s and Bush's for twenty years. That's a very long time for two families to lead the most powerful nation in the world.
It's time to pass the mantle of leadership to a new family. It's time for america to embrace change.
