Senator Obama would go a long way towards healing these wounds if he were to specifically praise the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency in a line or two during his speech on Thursday.Whatever, dude. I mean, I'm sure Obama will do exactly that, but the idea that people should cater to the amazing smallness of this dude strains good sense. His anger is clearly more important to him than the fate of his country. This is what must have driven Andrew and Hitch insane. Bill Clinton carries this sense of having been perpetually wronged--the game is only fair when he wins. I think what must burn him up the most is (assuming that it's true that the Obama people pushed the race-baiting angle) that Obama actually Sista Souljahed Clinton, that he took a few minor mis-statements used them to paint Bill as, well, exactly what he was.
« White people | Main | The "wasted" first day of the convention » The incredible arrogance of Bill Clinton25 Aug 2008 03:46 pm
As I've said, I don't doubt that Obama's people pushed this idea that Bill Clinton was race-baiting in the primaries. Frankly, I don't care if he was or wasn't. But it's shocking to see that the dude who flew home to see Ricky Ray Rector executed, who invented the Sista Soulja moment is actually still pissed at Obama. World-class primary-denier Howard Wolfson offers a list of steps that Obama should take which basically amount to holding Billy's hand and treating him like a 12-year old girl who got dumped for the first time:
Comments (73)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
since obama has gone out of his way to refer to the better economic times of the '90s without even referencing what party was in the white house, i think the issue is a little more complex than you make it out to be.
Its not a matter of placating Bill and Hillary's egos. Its a matter of how HRC supporters were called white trash hicks during the primary for having the audacity to prefer her over Obama. DO NOT forget that Bill Clinton is to most Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans - he's a symbol and an example of Democrats getting it right when they got into office - these 60's burn-outs and post-Naderites not-withstanding. As for Andrew and Hitch, those two deuchebags - Hith in particular - will be jumping off the S.S. Obama ship at the first sign of a shift in the winds. Hitch, writer of a hit piece of Mother Teresa and apologist for his good friend Paul Wolfowitz - You're going to use him as an example of reason and proportion in examining Bill Clinton? Obama could have handled the post nomination Hillary issue with better tact. That's more or less behind us now. The Democrats need to get unified to get this guy elected. Trashing Bill now doesn't help anything.
what Howard said. (And Nathan too.)
I'm right there with you.
All those times I spent defending this dude to everyone under the sun is time I will never get back and relationships I'll never repair.
And this is what he chooses to do with that type of loyalty. If there is one bad soundbite, one out-of-control Clinton delegate, or even the hint of a controversy from these people this next week or if Obama loses because of asshats like Bubba, the Clintons, et al, will be dead to me.
You might be conceding a lot here: "I don't doubt that Obama's people pushed this idea that Bill Clinton was race-baiting in the primaries."
Obama has a lot of people, and not all of them have innate good judgment or close contact with the candidate's strategists. Anyone who was pushing the race-baiting issue or antagonizing Bill Clinton was probably hurting Obama more than helping him, even during the primaries.
Now that the convention and the general election are upon us, anything that reminds the public of what it doesn't like about Bill & Hill, anything that reminds Bill & Hill of the insults that they have received, and anything that raises suspicions that Obama might have a "minority" agenda is--what's that phrase I keep hearing?--good for John McCain.
Please furnish a single example of someone from the Obama campaign--that's who we're talking about here--calling Hillary's supporters "white trash hicks." Don't give me someone in the media whom the campaign has no control over--show me how Obama specifically insulted Clinton supporters.
Everyone says Hitchens made these unfair attacks on Mother Teresa, but I've never heard anyone actually point to something he wrote that's out of bounds or wrong.
Don't give me someone in the media whom the campaign has no control over--show me how Obama specifically insulted Clinton supporters.
Bittergate?
Bush and WJClinton appear to have one thing in common: they think loyalty is a one way street that makes no reciprocal demands on them personally.
I defended Clinton even when I was seething inside -- I even forgave WJC and HRC their hopelessly incompetent foray into health care reform, and their obsessive desire to pass NAFTA because I thought that, at the end of the day, they were so much better than the other party.
Now, it's their turn to make nice no matter how much they are seething inside, because Obama is so much better than the other guy.
This isn't complicated in any way shape or form unless you continue to believe that the world revolves around the Clintons.
And Obama never called anybody white trash -- for Christ's sake, it was Hillary Clinton who brought up the "white working class" meme.
If obama campaign people "pushed this idea that Bill Clinton was race-baiting in the primaries", wouldn't a lot of passionate supporters of his - specifically, the 'white working class' Democrats who were said in the media to have been reluctant to vote for Obama on racial grounds immediately prior to this whole kerkuffle - have taken this as being called racist themselves? After all, if he did race-bait, they would purportedly have been the intended audience, right? I'm not saying that I agree with this interpretation, but it seems like that is what Nathan is getting at.
It's not about what Bill Clinton deserves. Dude is so far ahead on the cosmic karma ledger that the concept of deserves doesn't apply to him anymore.
It's about pragmatism. Hillary supporters' votes will count just the same as anyone else's. Out of pure self-interest, Obama could be doing plenty more to lock up their votes, at little cost to him other than words and pride. When he got the nomination and had a double digit lead in the polls, I'm sure he figured that pride was a luxury he could afford. But can he, really?
I understand the desire to see those who stood in your way punished, hear their lamentations, etc. But is that worth losing an election over?
DO NOT forget that Bill Clinton is to most Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans - he's a symbol and an example of Democrats getting it right when they got into office - these 60's burn-outs and post-Naderites not-withstanding.
Oh yeah, Democrats love reminiscing about the failure to do anything about health care, and presiding over the GOP takeover of Congress, and making NAFTA priority #1, and signing the Iraq Liberation Act, and deregulating the telecom industry, and going along with the GOP on dumping Glass-Steagal, and limiting habeas corpus, and expanding government spying powers, and re-nominating Alan Greenspan to lead the Fed.
Bill Clinton is the Dems' Reagan only in the sense that he was the Dem president who waved the white flag to the armies of Reaganism, declared that "the era of Big Government is over" and cemented the centrality of Capital's interests inside the Democratic Party.
At the end of the day: Clinton can go down in history as an obstacle in the path of the first African-American nominee or he can go down as a supporter.
History IS being made and will be analyzed and the drama the Clinton's are bringing are going to be a part of their legacy whether Obama wins or loses; I think they're just starting to get that right now and that's why they're backing off on the roll call vote.
Bill Clinton lost and he looked like he lost his mojo: I don't think the Obama camp spread the racist line, I think people close to them did and weren't reigned in at all. But the Clinton folks played the same way through the whole election.
Bill Clinton will end up coming out of this looking very small IMO, no matter what happens unless he blows the roof off this Wednesday and goes down to Hope, Arkansas with Obama and starts campaigning for him. But I doubt that'll happen.
And I still feel like Obama will win despite the Clinton drama.
I have no desire to see the Clintons punished. The desire for punishment (or, really, appeasement) is something that is apparently felt by WJC and certain Clinton supporters.
I am exasperated at WJC for failing to acknowledge the many people who sincerely helped him in a time of dire need and the fact that this election really matters to them. He is trashing his own reputation and place in history by doing so.
As for him being to Ds what Reagan is to Rs -- oh please, if that were the case, his time in office would not have led to such a significant resurgence of the Republican party in Congress.
What role did Jimmy Carter have during the '92 and '96 conventions?
I know Clinton is apparently more popular than Carter was at that time, but still, the convention is about the current candidate, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, Carter had some humility while Bill Clinton seemingly has no comprehension of what that virtue entails.
DO NOT forget that Bill Clinton is to most Democrats what Reagan is to Republicans
WRONG! Republicans treat Reagan as their FDR, and rightly so. Agree with his ideology or not, Reagan lead Republicans out of the wilderness and, for the last generation, shifted the direction of the debate to the right. Republicans built on Reagan so much so that they had an formidable infrastructure in place where they could nominate and elect someone as feckless as GWB.
Clinton never built any infrastructure wherein progressive ideas would be pushed and progressive politicians would be elected well after his eight years in office. It was, and still is, what's good for Billary.
As for BO being so disrespectful -- the worst I heard him say was that Bill never built a legacy that would be continued once he was gone. I'm still waiting concrete examples of BO's "disrespect" rather vague accusations spewed by bitter Clinton Dead-Enders.
As for HRC supporters [being] called white trash hicks during the primary for having the audacity to prefer her over Obama, who said that in the campaign? Who? Sure, supporters and some of the press implied just that, but name me high-level surrogates of campaign members themselves?
There's also, lemme see, Mark Penn on MSNBC with Joe Trippi gratuitously mentioning "cocaine" three separate times, the Clinton press aide (who name escapes me at this moment) who likened BO to the cool black guy all the white kids want to be friends with, to good old Bob Johnson and the lovely and talented Gerry Ferraro. Those are just top of mind, the obvious ones. There are many, many more.
Oh yeah, one last point. If Bubba only could have kept his fly zipped resisted the "charms" of a chubby intern, GWB would have never been President.
Is it wrong to push the idea that someone is race-baiting when in fact they actually are race-baiting?
I would defend Bill and Hillary in their "fairytale" and it-took Lyndon-Johnson-to-enact-MLK's-vision comments. I don't think either was racist. I'd understand them being pretty pissed off at being called racists if that was the end of the story.
But on Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comparison, on Bob Kerrey's sleazy reminder that Hussein is Obama's middle name, Geraldine Ferraro's loony diatribe about how Obama is priveleged by his blackness this election (and that she's being persecuted for being white and "truthful"), and the internal Clinton campaign memo that they focus on Obama's "lack of roots", I think calling out the Clinton campaign for race-baiting is simply calling a spade a spade.
and...
Yep... the bottom line is that the nineties were a pretty good time to be an American and a damned good time to be a Clintonite and/or DLCer, but a lousy time to be a Democrat overall. Not all of it was Bill's fault--part of it was simply the historical culmination of a three-decade GOP project-- but neither his rhetoric nor his character (not to mention his high-funding & media-obsessed, but organizationally useless, model of politicking) did the party any long-term favors.
if people want to take shots at bill clinton over what wolfson is saying, fine: he's hardly perfect and he deserves shots.
but if people are living in some fantasy world of how much better off the democratic party would be if george bush i had won re-election in '92 and then someone else had won in '96, then i feel very, very sorry for their unrealistic grasp of american politics.
What Pesto and Shine said:
"Bill Clinton is the Dems' Reagan only in the sense that he was the Dem president who waved the white flag to the armies of Reaganism, declared that "the era of Big Government is over" and cemented the centrality of Capital's interests inside the Democratic Party."
I'd add to that the signing of the telecom and defense of marriage acts, strangling Iraq with sanctions for nearly a decade and basically laying the groundwork for our current Iraq bloodbath.
The Clintons and the DLC machine have probably done more than anyone to shift the political center of gravity in this country to the right than nearly anyone else. Its not that Clinton was an awful president, or that Hil would be, they are both light years better than Bush or McCain, but they need to go away.
Oh, and if these Hilary dead-enders could provide even ONE rational explanation for not voting Obama, then I'm afraid the racist or just simply deranged explanation is all that's left.
latts - I think you hit a point on organization. (Bill) Clinton was good at getting out votes for Clinton, but not so much at getting out votes for downticket Dems (with the exception of 1998, which could just as easily be explained by gross GOP overreach). Love or hate Al Gore, I don't think anyone seriously thinks Bush would have had a hope in hell if not for Monicagate. A moderately popular VP during huge economic growth? No contest.
howard, being "not as bad as GHWB" is not the same thing as "being the Democrats' Reagan" (meant in a positive way).
I'm from California originally. Dan Lundgren would have been an utter disaster as Governor. But that fact doesn't make Gray Davis some kind of hero.
Agree with Pesto. Clinton was a hinderance to the Democratic party and liberal policies in general.
They ran as "New Democrats" who were better by leaps and bounds than those old rust-belt union-captured/coastal, effete, liberals that lost in 1988. Once they got the slightest bit of push back on a policy, they immediately found a way to co-opt a GOP policy.
They believed and benefitted from the demonization of the liberal base of their own party.
The Clintons were dead to me when Peter Edelman quit HHS.
i agree with howard.
and i kind of agree with t-nc.
i think both obama and clinton are acting like little b-tches who are putting their own personal issues ahead of the party's and country's interests.
while clinton has been more of one than obama, obama has a certain tendency to indulge in that kind of catfighting also.
(his "you're likable enough, hillary" dig was the only time i've actually cringed when i heard a candidate say something. that was typical of that catty impulse in obama where he gratuitously sticks the dagger in for some kind of deepseated pleasure.)
clinton should leave it alone, and i think that t-nc pretty much nails the reasons why.
but obama has made, i believe, a huge mistake by not embracing more openly bill clinton's economic successes in the '90's. while i had problems with some of the specifics - welfare reform, the telecommunications act - one cannot argue with the record. whatever he did, it worked.
for the life of me, i cannot understand what obama would lose if he showered all sorts of praise on clinton and talked glowingly of his successes on the economic front. it would only seem to help his own campaign.
i can only surmise that he refuses to do so out of some kind of personal pique.
and for the record, i never really like bill much anyway. i always thought he had more than a little bit of the phony in him.
i ALWAYS thought that hillary was the better half of that duo.
pesto (btw, don't know if you ever got back and saw my chagrin over linking to the same dr. z article that you had originally linked to; i simply assumed you were linking to cook's career stats), let's use your 4:39 as an example.
i would never, for a second, call clinton the dem's "reagan." i would, however, note that if you want to pick the 8 years of the past 40 that were the best for the american economy (and, in particular, for those at the low and middle-income levels of that economy) you would pick 1993-2000, and that's the very first thing i think of wrt clinton.
a very powerful right-wing movement has been the dominant force in american politics for the past 40 years; god couldn't reverse all those trends, and southern governors aren't going to, either.
so when i see various people (including you), leaping to catalog clinton's failures to achieve the new jerusalem, i wonder what miracles you (and others) think he could have achieved?
just because it's the comment right above me as i type, for instance, i see Sharon coming up with some notion that clinton's entire approach was to co-opt a gop policy.
sure: that's why he passed a tax hike in 1993 with no republican support. that's why he resisted tax cuts in order to "save social security first." that's why he didn't commit group troops in Bosnia. because that's all bill clinton did: practice gop policies.
i realize, pesto, you didn't quite put it that way, but that's what i'm responding to.
and yes, in comparison with what came before and after, gray davis was a decent governor: that is where your assessment of davis should start....
Well, yes, Bill has a huge ego problem. The thing is, though, he did have an incredibly effective tenure as President, with the exception of health care.
And he took it to 'em. There weren't blogs at the time, to back him up, but there WAS the Right-Wing Media borg
He is and was both personally charismatic, very smart, and supremely effective.
Also, there is the policy angle - what most people who have "doubts" about Obama now - assuming they are genuine doubts - is because of the experience angle.
The Clinton embrace - of Bill, more than Hillary - would go far to saying - hey, the same guy who added 2-3 million jobs A YEAR, for the run of his presidency.
The deficit to surplus.
People out of poverty
Household income.
The economic performance of the Clinton years is an AWESOME thing to tie yourself to, right? If you say, "I guarantee the type of economic performance we saw during Clinton/Gore, and Bill Clinton himself thinks my plan will deliver that", that type of effective, practical message, isn't to be underestimated.
I swear, some people just don't have a functional mmedium-term memory. The Clintons were trying to win the primary and there's no need to begrudge them for going hard, especially now that they lost lost, but they very happily used Obama's race to further their campaign.
Let's see:
The constant dismissal of Obama's wins in the South as product of a "proud black electorate"
The infamous "Jesse Jackson ran a great race in South Carolina" quote
The argument for electability because Hillary wins the "hard working white vote"
The subtle diss to MLK and blaming Obama for bringing race into the discussion when non-Obama affiliate black politicians criticised her for it.
The Geraldine Ferraro fiasco and Hillary's ever so tepid response.
Bill accusing Obama of race-bating and then denying it mere hours later.
These are just example off the top of my head. Get real, race was most certainly on the table during the primaries, for Bill to throw a hissy fit about it now is pathetic. They lost, now they need to get over it and get with the program, if they truly care about the future of this country.
I'm sorry but if somebody has a problem with a person calling them white trash hick, then they should go talk to that person. What in the heck does that have to do with Barack Obama? Nobody in his campaign said anything like that, so I'm not sure why we are even talking about that. It is not Barack Obama's responsiblity to heal somebody's wounds because their next door neighbor called them a white trash hick.
phillyguy, i honestly don't know or care what bill and hillary think in private, but in public, their position is not howard wolfson's position, and i think we should note that distinction.
so when i see various people (including you), leaping to catalog clinton's failures to achieve the new jerusalem, i wonder what miracles you (and others) think he could have achieved?
Actually, I (and I imagine most Dems) was willing to let bygones be bygones, give Bill plenty of credit, and be proud of whatever his globetrotting post-presidency entailed.
Until, that is, he decided he wanted a third term/restoration/whatever in the person of Hillary. It's one thing to say that he did a damned good job in an unfavorable environment (debatable in some respects, but a valid opinion), but it's entirely another to essentially claim that the same political approach should be the best we can hope for as the GOP implodes. And it's even more galling to insist, even just by implication, that if the Clinton operation just got another chance, in a less conservative time, that we'd see a more liberal Clintonism-- it's beyond selfish and narcissistic.
Furthermore, while Bill was a good & generally responsible steward of a rapidly growing economy, he benefited greatly from both the end of the Cold War and the already-in-process tech boom, and that particularly fortunate bit of lightning ain't gonna strike twice.
nathan -- puhleeze! YOu're just giving the truth to Ta-Nehisi's point: What arrogance to be pissed somebody's not licking your boots 'cause you're the party's 'symbol." YA think REAgan would be this immature? HE'd say all's fair in love and politics (Like most republicans do), and give OBAma credit for besting him. It's ok for the CLintons to play dirty politics in order to win, but it's not ok for their opponents?
BIll Clinton comes from a family of alcoholics. So do I. THe co-dependent dynamic runs deep. YOU don't have to actually be a drinker or substance abuser to be a person who forces the people around you to be your co-dependents. ALL you have to be is somebody who's been indoctrinated/acculturated into that pattern and be enormously selfish and self-absorbed. In my family, the current person who plays that role is my mother -- she's never been a drinker or substance abuser, unlike several in the family, but she's been raised with that pattern.
Clinton's like my mother. HE's trying to force (Subsconsciously probably) the rest of the democratic party to be his-codependents. OBAma's not biting, so he's gonna whine and throw fits until Obama does.
HE's acting like a spoiled rotten brat. WHich is what he is. AND the media and the democratic party are letting him.
Screw that. Why do we always have to "note" for Bill and Hillary Clinton but not for Barack Obama?
I'm one of those who is sick of this too.
You can't keep making people dig up every technicality any time Bill Clinton MIGHT be wrong but then ignore them when Barack Obama comes up.
People have given, here, at least half a dozen examples of Bill Clinton race-baiting. You might disagree with their examples but they've given them.
So far we have none, zip, zero examples on here of how Barack Obama race-baited. I'm not saying people don't have them, just that they're not on here.
Yet the two arguments are treated equally.
This is precisely the problem. People always come up with some b.s. reason for excusing everything the Clintons do. Whereas with Obama it's the exact opposite. Those who don't like Obama (and feel he trashed Bill) are allowed to propogate this viewpoint with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It's just assumed that their position is reasonable.
I'm sorry I don't agree it is. And in the fairness of an equal argument they should produce some proof.
PhillyGuy's produced plenty. Where is theirs? And why would I assume Howard Wolfson DIDN'T speak for Obama?
Also if Obama has a responsibility to patch things up with the Clintons, then surely Hillary has an equal responsibility to shut her stupid surrogates (and former Communications Director) Howard Wolfson up, right?
It's the unequal standards that bother me. And the point Ms. Coates is getting at.
When it comes to the Clintons there's always another standard when they lose. But when they win the rest of us just have to shut up and deal with it.
Now who's really being unfair? I'm sorry I'm not doing it this time. The Clintons can either play ball or shove it where the sun don't shine.
Anybody know somewhere to watch convention webcasts online?
john,
while i don't disagree with your views, i have to emphasize one point that you are glossing over a bit: the idea is to win the election.
and right now that means dealing with a prima donna like bill clinton.
so obama has to find a way, somehow, to manage the issues surrounding both bill and hillary.
it aint fair, and it may involve him having to kiss a little butt in order to resolve things.
again, it won't necessarily be the fairest outcome, but if the object is to win and if winning involves resolving the conflict between the two camps, then you do what you have to do and worry about the other stuff later.
i imagine that if he wins the election, he'll have more than a few opportunities to exact his revenge and get his payback. if it is revenge and payback he ultimately wants.
You know, I have not heard of one damn thing Bill Clinton has done on the bratty front since the primary ended. Every time his name comes up, it's because someone in the press is dying to put the Dems on page six. It's gossippy and it's an attempt to get back to the "OMG Dems Divided!!1!" meme that the press loves so much.
Hillary seems to be doing everything she can to promote unity and support Obama. She can't help it if some crazed delegate freaks out, and like I said, what has Bill even done lately? What is this rift that Wolfson is telling us how to heal?
In other words, you may be out of patience for Bill Clinton/the Clintons, but I am out of patience for these twitty little stories about what a douche Bill Clinton is.
latts, the idea that hillary clinton only ran as a manifestation of bill clinton's desire for a restoration is based on...what? we had two candidates in the closest race in years: somehow i have trouble believing all those people voted for hillary because they were victimized by bill clinton's desire for a "restoration."
maria, we have howard wolfson, in the course of some dumb remarks that, whatever is going on in private do not represent the public position of bill and/or hillary clinton, making a very self-evident point: that obama is so obsessed with changing the tone that he can't bring himself to note that a democratic adminstration (forget whether he specifically cites clinton) was in charge of those good times in the '90s that he's happy to reference. how, exactly, does this demonstrate bill clinton being a "spoiled brat" (not the typical co-dependent behavior, but i'm not really interested in your armchair psychology).
phillyguy, i honestly don't know or care what bill and hillary think in private, but in public, their position is not howard wolfson's position, and i think we should note that distinction.
Howard, I beg to differ, Bill as recently as a few weeks ago was still turning up in newspaper articles declaring that he's not a racist and playing the victim (the implication that he was a victime to Obama's race-card tactics). Hillary's been more solid, but she really needs to step up and get a hold of her people who are complaining about her not being considered strongly enough for the VP.
The fracture in the Dem party is very real, I think that much is clear and the GOP is very transparently trying to capitalize on it by using Hillary's words against Obama. All she has to do is mock those ads mercilessly to turn that it around, but I am not seeing it quite yet.
For the record, I think Bill was an excellent President, personal slip-ups and all. Hillary, by all accounts is a very solid Senator, though the constant negativity, victimhood (no one mentions the constant gender-card she played) and presumptuousness of her campaign really turned me off.
All that needs be said to Bill Clinton: "Either Lead or get out of the way..."
phillyguy, let me be clearer.
our host kicked this off by denouncing wolfson for insisting that there were steps that obama needed to take to heal the breach (or whatever phrase you want to use). our host thought this was very small-minded, and frankly, it is small-minded.
so when i say that's wolfson's position, it's in reference to that.
wrt "racism" and "race card" and all of the other variations: yes, in response to a question (Snow asked Clinton, "Do you personally have any regrets about what you did campaigning for your wife?"
With his arms folded and looking a bit tense, Clinton replied, "Yes, but not the ones you think. And it would be counterproductive for me to talk about it."
Barely pausing for a breath, he added, "There are things I wish I'd urged her to do, things I wish I had said, things I wish I hadn't said. But I am not a racist, I never made a racist comment, and I didn't attack him personally," a clear allusion to Sen. Barack Obama.) a few weeks ago, clinton made it clear that he doesn't like being called a "racist."
i would say that he's right to think that way; using the "race card" isn't the same as being a "racist."
but the point is, he's getting ready to make a speech at the convention supporting obama; hillary is doing what she can to support obama. they obviously aren't in agreement with wolfson in terms of their actions....
The Clintons definitely care a lot about the Clintons -- maybe not more than they care about the Democratic Party, but it's close. Why is anyone surprised that they'd rather sulk than put on a happy face without an engraved invitation?
Obama needs Clinton to deliver her voters for him. Hillary doesn't need anything at this point. If Obama loses, she can say I told you so. I am baffled at the continued insistence that the Clintons are the ones that should do the making up and apologizing -- even if there are things that they ought to apologize for.
Just so it's clear I'm not myself a disgruntled Clinton supporter: I strongly dislike both Clinton and McCain, so I'm rooting for Obama to win, despite the fact that as a centrist I disagree with most of his policy proposals.
That's why I'm so baffled that he's not putting more effort into making nice with Clinton. Isn't building a coalition by saying nice things about people you hate part of the basic politician's toolbox?
Dewb: what in the hell are you talking about? What more can Obama do to "make nice" with Clintons, other than to decline the nomination and give it to Hillary? What about some loyalty to the party on behalf of the Clintons? If Obama loses, Hillary certainly can say, I told you so because she will have been the principal engineer of the loss: for waging a vicious pointless campaign, for not mending rifts in the party, for the mendacious display of "unity" she and her husband was been giving for months. The sooner these people are flushed from the body politic, thye healthier it will be.
obama has everything to lose by not making nice with the clintons. so he needs to do whatever he can do in order to bring the party - and the clintons - together.
what more can he do?
who knows, as that is between bill and barack. but we know this much: whatever he's done so far, it aint enough.
let me say this one more time: this is not about being fair or what is fair or who is right. it's about resolving a conflict so that you can politically benefit.
my personal opinion is that neither clinton cares anything about the democratic party. the party has just been a vehicle for their ambitions and goals. if the republicans had been as receptive, i'm sure they'd be republicans.
the strongest evidence for that point is the long association with mark penn, a man who obviously had no loyalty to any party. the fact that they carried out many of the strategies he advocated shows me conclusively that they really don't care about the party, other than for what the party can do for them.
but as Dewb just noted, making nice with people you hate is part of being a politician.
i think that obama needs to keep reminding himself of that fact.
Miande, I agree with everything you said except for the first two sentences. If Obama loses, Hillary will certainly bear a lot of the responsibility.
Obama certainly shouldn't have to work for the support of the Clintons. The expectation is that the losing primary candidate will demonstrate party loyalty and shut up. But, given that the Clintons haven't shut up, Obama needs to try harder to create one big happy family in public and save the fighting for the back rooms. Like I said, the people who voted for Hillary, their votes are still counted in the general election.
His campaign needs to set a stronger example for his supporters. They need to recognize that it was a hard-fought primary on both sides, and continuing to cry foul over slights and unfairness -- even when justified -- is counterproductive. They have to turn that switch off. You need to change tactics when the battleground shifts. So yes, there is plenty more Obama's campaign could be doing. They're the ones with the election at stake, not the Clintons, who at this point are just out for themselves.
here is why i find this kind of discussion so dispiriting: in the real world, both clintons are saying all the right things in denver, and i feel highly confident that they will do all the right things.
but miande just knows that it's a "mendacious display of 'unity.'"
you couldn't make this kind of thing up.
latts, the idea that hillary clinton only ran as a manifestation of bill clinton's desire for a restoration is based on...what?
Oh, I'm sorry-- I should have said that it was based on the obvious fact that there was so much governing-chops fabulousness in their household that Bill couldn't possibly have displayed it all in only eight years. Right? Never mind that spouses inheriting political offices (and even then they're usually legislative ones, not executive) is typically one of those ridiculously sentimental things that happens when the original officeholder drops dead. By that same standard, it's arguably true that GWB deserved the presidency much more than his father did, since he is clearly a far superior political operator... hey, perhaps we could get used to this sort of ongoing ruling-families battle, only evaluating one heir against their immediate counterpart and their predecessor's performance. That would simplify things.
we had two candidates in the closest race in years: somehow i have trouble believing all those people voted for hillary because they were victimized by bill clinton's desire for a "restoration."
Dunno if they were 'victimized', but there was certainly a massive contingent of pure stupid among people who thought-- and I saw plenty of 'em, both online and IRL-- they were gonna get the nineties back if they just clicked their heels three times & voted for another Clinton. I'd like the 24-inch waist I had during that decade back, too, but it ain't happening by any natural means. Time passes.
In any case, it would have really spoken poorly of a party that had no choice but to build that rhetorical political bridge back to the twentieth century had HRC managed to eke out a primary win. Relying on retreads and sequels is a sign of declining vitality & imagination, after all.
Bill Clinton had almost 100% approval ratings from African-Americans in the late 1990's and now it is hard to find a single African-American who will admit to ever supporting Clinton.
I guess politics in just like high school.
The idea that is being pawned by the MSM and the Clinton camp that the Clintons are the victims in all this is just so fucking beyond insane it can only have 2012 written all over it. Wasn't Bill run out of Washington with his pants around his ankles?
Has everyone forgotten the fake tears in NH, the fixed ABC lynching/debate at the hands of the ex-Clinton wizkid. OR the white average american white people, OR hell Bobby Kennedy got shot so anything can happen bullshit. They went balls to the wall without restraint on every subject from white america to Rev. Wright and lost now its tantrum time.
How everyone else in the world besides a few bloggers like Ta-Nehisi and Andrew or Olberman (does this make you guys the "fringe") let CNN and the rest of the MSM, idiots like Penn, assholes like Wolfson run our politics and lead us by the nose to whatever story they feel deserves prominance and can get the most bang out of regardless of the validity or lasting negative effect it might have on our country is beyond me...I don't know why I bother.
The amazing smallness of this dude....Bill Clinton carries this sense of having been perpetually wronged.
Beautiful summary. Though I believe that by this Friday, people's interest in what Bill thinks of things will have passed, and the only risk will be whether he realizes it's best to bury himself in the foundation's works, or keeps trying to tug the cameras back for one more war story.
I hope Hillary remains in non-executive jobs (e.g. Senator) where there is no First-Spousish role for Bill to overfill and overflow.
On racism: I believe he's not a racist. As to whether he would cold bloodedly and deliberately race bait to turn others' racism to his advantage? Oh hell yeah. I was watching in South Carolina, and beyond. The ends justify the means campaigning, as I started hearing from many an online Clinton supporter around this time.
Obama has already given tribute to the Clinton administration's success in a number of speeches. People like Wolfson waste my (our) time when they suggest this is what is yet to be done.
I just think it's worth pointing out that there have been reports of Bill Clinton not getting along with all 3 of the people the Democrats have nominated since 2000. Just saying.
"As I've said, I don't doubt that Obama's people pushed this idea that Bill Clinton was race-baiting in the primaries. Frankly, I don't care if he was or wasn't."
>>I do. I never saw evidence that Obama's campaign pushed the notion of 'race baiting.' As far as I could discern, both Clintons used many forms of disinformation and misinformation to go after Obama based upon race, ethnicity, religion, and patriotism. They panicked after Iowa, and were bouncing off the walls, until HRC appeared to be a different person every day. Her 'shame on you BHO', 'McCain passed the test to be CinC, I have, and you'll have to ask BHO', not a Moslem 'as far as I know', and the 'hard working white people' comments showed her to be a lousy person, lousy presidential Democratic Party nominee, and without a moral compass. Billy-Bong's moral compass was never an issue in my mind, because he demonstrated time and time again that he had none.
As you noted, he broke off his first presidential campaign to sign off on the death penalty by torture of a guy who had effectively lobotomized himself by shooting himself in the head after he murdered one man, and then shot and killed a policeman. I guess Clinton had to prove his cajones by knowingly killing a black man who didn't know he was about to be executed. Rector said 'he'd be back' to finish his pecan pie when he came back from down the hall.
Bill went on to oversee the loss of congress to the nimrod Republicans and Newton Ginko, get a blowjob in the Oval Office while talking on the phone about Kosovo, and then lied to everyone, everyone, about it. His NAFTA and 'welfare reform' were Republican ideas hatched during the Bush I years, and they were cruel to the struggling working class and the poor. Clinton is a fool, a creep and a narcissist. He opened the door wide for Bush ll.
So I do care what he was doing, because it gives me insight to what he may do now and in the future. Now the Clintons seem to want to extort something from Obama. If Obama agrees, the Republicans will paint him as weak, just as they will use hours of lying attacks on BHO by HRC during the primary. HRC will be the 'star' of a multitude of lowlife Republican ads. Obama: weak, wimpy, arrogant, elitist, out of touch with the American people, unsubstantial, and a black, fist bumping wise ass who gives a great speech from a teleprompter. That's what is ahead. Obama will meet the attacks and turn it against his and our mortal enemies. I am sure of that.
Every American who has grown up here has some degree of racism. The key is to understand ourselves, our biases, and not act upon them, but do the right thing, and struggle against the panoply of forces that attempt to turn our moral compasses into a malformed and mutated guide to the future.
McCain is worse than Bush. Bush is a mindless puppet. McCain is a bellicose, irrational, and stupid man. That's his life story from day one. There is more at stake than 'four more years of Bush.'
Adin
A lot of people in the Democratic party probably led Bill Clinton to believe that they would forever follow him blindly. His people were willing to put up with almost everything when the fight was Clinton Vs. Gingrich or Clinton Vs. Dole. Plus, after 12 years of Republican rule, Clinton was seen as the Golden Boy, the Comeback Kid who was literally touched by Kennedy as a teen and was elected to finish the job JFK started.
He was once the darling of the beautiful people in Hollywood, but then the former bootlickers like Moveon.org and David Geffen grew tired of the Clinton lies and sellouts. Then the tactics that they once applauded when employed against republicans were used against other democrats, and that was a step too far.
So I can see how Clinton could be stunned and would feel slighted by his fall from grace in the eyes of many Democrats. They led him to believe that he could get away with just about anything. But none of that ultimately absolves Clinton of his pathological egotism. He has often been accused of obsessing about his place in history; his latest bit of acting this out has been quite embarrassing.
Bottom line is that Clinton supporters need to get onboard or risk being irrelevant starting in November. If you want her to have any future in the party hop on board now.
Howard, I did read your comment about Cook, don't worry about it. In fact, I had originally planned to link to his stats, but found the Dr. Z article before I posted and it seemed much better than just the numbers.
As to Clinton's performance/legacy...yes, I absolutely agree that Clinton was dealing with a few decades of very effective rightwing organizing. And there wasn't anything on the other side. Except wait, there was. Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 campaigns looked for a while like the start of some kind of reaction, populist and left wing, to what was still at that time called the New Right.
Now, the Rainbow Coalition fizzled for a lot of reasons, but one of the main ones was the emergence of the DLC, which was created specifically to keep the Democratic Party from falling into the hands of a bunch of leftists, black radicals, peaceniks, environmentalists, and rank-and-file workers. And who was the DLC poster boy in the early 1990s? Bill Clinton.
Clinton signed up for the task of kneecapping the Democratic left -- he actively campaigned on "The 3rd Way" and on "reinventing government" both of which were euphemisms for "pro-corporate Democrats". He pushed NAFTA through a generally suspicious Congress -- his first priority as President. That's not on the GOP or Pat Robertson -- that stuff is on him. He's not a poor, sad progressive who just wishes he could be Tom Hayden but had to deal with Newt instead. He's a center-right, pro-corporate Dem.
This is a wierd dynamic we got going here in this thread. It's the people who felt sold out in the 90's vs. the people who think Clinton-era DLCism was the apex of American civilization.
What we are playing out is a species of the Nader-Gore wars pre-and-post 2000 election. The really sad part is Obama has given me, anyway, damn little reason to believe he is outside of the DLC mold lately. His heresy is that at some point in his campaign, he thought we could better than Clintonism and that's terrible and we'll vote for McCain over that sort of shit.
This country is fucked and maybe even democracy is a piss-poor idea here.
Well, upon further reflection the country is not fucked.
Hard-core Clintonite's will not make up the ground needed to take both hard-core conservatives who are very ready to vote Obama just to stick a cross in McCain and indepenents who are breaking to Obama because they get the weathervane. McCain should be crushing the independent vote and he isn't which tells you something about the sort of commisar of the DLC revolution who would break the other way. It's a handful of total brainwashed party hacks who are making a last gasp at political importance.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Bill Clinton is a narcissist who has no capacity to subjugate his personal needs. I was an ardent Clinton supporter for all of his presidency, but the reality of his personal and emotional weaknesses is too obvious to ignore.
As I read this blog and watch the first night of the convention, I wonder if we are finally on the cusp of a reorganization of our political party system.
Could it be that the nominations of Senators Obama and McCain will actually be the catalyst for substantive party splits/changes just as the '48 DNC was the beginning of the GOP's four decade grip on the South?
Could it be that 2012 will see three or four major party candidates for the presidency, each with a real base?
I don't have much sympathy for Clinton's recent peevishness. I think his wife has far outclassed him, which (until recently, she's getting better) says a lot.
That said, he was the last Democratic POTUS, was re-elected by a large margin, and reigned over a time of peace, prosperity, and international respect that makes today's failings all the move galling. Whatever his faults, he is due a certain amount of respect for that.
And that said, his many and manifest failings, and the damage they inflicted on his party, should leave him a little more humble about his role in the current convention. His legacy, after all, was of little benefit to Democratic Congressmen, Al Gore, or John Kerry. Or Hillary. His is a mixed record, and its benefits apparently aren't portable.
It seems that, finally, the only way for a Democrat to get elected is to overcome the Clinton legacy, which is what Barack is attempting. Bill needs to reconcile himself to the idea that no one else is going to justify him and his legacy. He had his shot, and it is what it is, whatever "is" means. Time to move on.
Your shallow commentary is something to behold. Obama now leads the party and he has to provide direction. Blaming Bill is about as stupid as some of your other commentry. Get real. This about Obama winning an election; not about Bill. Don't look for enemies to blame. From Thursday on Obama will have to carry this Party and he does not need scribblers to make excuses for him.
A bit of commentary from Malcolm Rivers on Obama and saddleback:
American Idiot
Whatever, right back at you! I would say, however, that what drove Hitch insane about Bill was Bosnia, and admirably so. Sullivan, I'm not so sure, but keep in mind that he was and is a conservative, and therefore there was no initial silo full of affection. It's like wondering how and why I became disaffected from McCain.
When you quote Hitchens and Sullivan, in your dudish lingo commenting on Bill Clinton it tells me you are incredibly stupid. You choose two Clinton haters as a frame of reference. It says more about you than it says about Bill. The attempt at jive talk does not illuminate what you have to say.
I hope Hillary remains in non-executive jobs (e.g. Senator) where there is no First-Spousish role for Bill to overfill and overflow.
Exactly. If Hillary succeeds Ted Kennedy as the next "lion of the Senate" and becomes the linchpin to the same kind of far-reaching significant legislation as he was, Bill will have as much influence on the day-to-day governing of the country as Vickie Kennedy or any other senatorial spouse. Which is to say: Nada.
And Bill knows it. And he is in no way happy about it.
Why the hate Ta-Nehisi? Our guy Barack won the nomination. How pumped am I?!?! But now you want Bill to tell you that you're the greatest? I used to do that to my little brother after I beat him at a video game while I had him in a headlock: "say that I'm the best tecmo bowl player ever and that you're a piece of sh*t! admit it!" Of course I was 12 years old at the time.
Bill's wife lost in a very close, spirited race filled with regrets and bone-headed moves that must keep him tossing and turning every night. You want Bill, who has known mostly success during his life, to just suddenly hand over the keys to Barack and pat him on the back? Are you kidding? Bill WAS the Democratic Party. He brought them back from Carter and Dukakis. Give the guy a break.
Chris: "The attempt at jive talk does not illuminate what you have to say."
That, right there, shall be the thesis statement for my life.
The funniest thing I've read all morning.
His anger is clearly more important to him than the fate of his country
Ding, ding, ding, ding!
This is, after all, the guy who stood on the sidelines while President Bush wiped his butt with the nation (I guess he learned about sitting on the sidlines while the Hutu were butchering the Tutsis) but who sprang into furious action when someone dared challenge his wife for the job of Presidential candidate. He revealed his priorities there. [To prevent confusion, it is not the defense of his wife that I am criticizing, but his tepid response the previous eight years to the Bush administration. There is a large difference between Al Gore and Bill Clinton.)
When you quote Hitchens and Sullivan, in your dudish lingo commenting on Bill Clinton it tells me you are incredibly stupid. You choose two Clinton haters as a frame of reference. It says more about you than it says about Bill. The attempt at jive talk does not illuminate what you have to say.
I probably shouldn't feed into this but I have always thought dude talk and jive talk were two seperate styles. But then again, I never knew it was a fact that use of the term "dude" signified anything about intelligence.(that may be self-serving on my behalf, or ignorance on your behalf)
I wonder what it says about Clinton supporters when they state that "jive talk" is a sign of inferiority? Maybe this is how Clinton and his supporters got tagged with the charges of racism.
And not to be picky, but TNC never "quoted" Hitchens and Sullivan, he referenced their work. He quoted Wolfson. Then again, as someone who uses "dude" a lot, perhaps I am not smart enought to know the meaning of the word "quote". Afterall, I needed Bill Clinton to explain to me what the mean of "is" is.
One learns with the Clintons that no matter what you do for them, how you do it, where you do it, when and with whom - it's never enough. $20 says that if Barack did everthing - everything Wolfson said is necessary to make nice to Bill, there would still be something lacking, some other gesture Barack would be 'required' to make to appease Mr. Bill...
You can never win with the Clintons. They just suck you dry.
Dunno, and I'm not at all certain it'd be a good thing if that did happen, but it's seemed to me for some time that party realignments are long past due. Nearly a century without a truly significant shakeup (aside from the race-issues exchanges) is way too long, and I wonder if television is to blame for basically fossilizing each party's political philosophy.
Well, I said it over on Too Sense already, but I'll repeat myself a bit here. The shorter version of Bill Clinton's demands to Obama is this:
"All you have to do is blow me on national television Wednesday, and I'll be happy to support you."
I'm so tired of the Clintons and all of their egotistical melodrama.
I've yet to see the comparison,but this situation really reminds me of when the black guy finally won The Apprentice. Not only did he have to be a total superstar, but then when it got to the end,he was asked to share his win with the white woman who was runner up.