« ESPN Screws the Cowboys | Main | When all else fails blame the Negroes » He ain't a crook, son28 Sep 2008 07:38 pm Give him credit because he's being honest--kinda, and this interview isn't that bad. He does share with McCain a general underestimation of Obama as a candidate, and maybe even, as a person. These guys are shell-shocked and locked into prism that was forged some 40 years ago. When they look at Obama they see the stereotype--another effete overly cerebral liberal. And so great is the illusion that they fall never even quite knowing what hit them, never even knowing they've been touched. File Clinton in that department--dig his complete mis-analysis of the black vote in the primaries. He simply can't believe he lost to this skinny black kid straight out of Hyde Park. Moreover, he still doesn't believe that this dude will topple the war-hero John McCain. I know this can be infuriating to use lefty Obama supporters. Certainly I've done my share of raging. But then today it hit me: In the context of this campaign, and with all due respect to a former president, why do I give a fuck about Bill Clinton? All of us who've seriously followed and supported Obama understand that his greatest strength is not that the American people don't get him--but that dispensers of the conventional wisdom don't get him. These are the same people who confuse media trickery and false outrage with the hard work of voter turnout. We know that Obama isn't a doe in the woods, but a boa quietly and brutally constricting the life out of the opposing campaign. Excepting a strong speech at the convention, what has Bill Clinton been during this campaign but a sideshow? What did he do for his wife in South Carolina? In Virginia? In Wisconsin? Why do we think his homilies toward McCain will do that campaign (which is hauntingly similar to Hillary's) any good? Seriously, who is this guy and why do we need him? We keep asking why he isn't backing us harder. But the greater question is why do we care? Comments (88)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.
All Bill Clinton was really good for was delaying the apotheosis of the Age Of Stupid for 8 years. The conservative movement thought it had final victory in sight - Poppy Bush would be reelected and he'd appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices and it would be all over. Clinton frustrated that.
If he'd been able to keep his dick in his pants maybe Gore would have been elected. (I know, I know, but it shouldn't have been close.) Maybe the Age Of Stupid never would have won with Dumbya Bush, and we'd have a happier and healthier country today. Instead we're seeing what the Age Of Stupid was always leading to - a disaster of epic proportions, a country that has disgraced itself.
But if Obama wins at least the electorate will be rejecting the FUCKING IDIOT CONS at last, and we can start to rebuild.
But no one should care any more what Clinton thinks about anything.
I think Bill likes McCain because he's running the same sort of campaign against Obama that Hillary did. Unfortunately for JM, he's getting the same results.
I believe there is some saying about hammers, nails, and things hitting them on heads of other things which seems moderately relevant to this post.
Bill is going to miss his crown. I won't miss Bill at all.
Goodbye boomers, don't let the door hit you on your way out...
Re: "Why do I give a fuck about Bill Clinton?"
DING DING DING!!! Absolutely, TNC, one of the most interesting themes from this campaign has been the complete inability of the 20th century establishment to even approach understanding a fairly simple political concept that has existed since the beginning of time: generational turnover (there's probably a more catchy way to say this, but yeah). I mean, it happens EVERY GENERATION!!! You'd think they would have anticipated that this would happen eventually.
I think you guys are missing the point, and what Clinton's up to. I think this is a "Brutus is an honorable man" thing that Clinton is doing.
Honestly, how is this all that different from "John is right about this" that Obama himself was saying?
I remember when Clinton finally commented on the Iraq War, what he said was, "all presidents make mistakes". And everyone thought that he was showing great restraint and good manners toward Bush. And what he was doing was calling the war a "mistake", when that was not yet the consensus judgement.
I'm really beginning to appreciate Obama's qualities, but I still think of Bill Clinton as the most brilliant pure politician of our time, remarks in South Carolina notwithstanding.
It is preposterous that Bill wants McCain to win. Utterly preposterous. However, he's aware that people think that about him, and he's willing to use it.
It is interesting that Clinton doesn't seem to have a solid constituency he can deliver.
He's not needed in states where he's most popular and he's not going to be able to deliver Arkansas or any other Southern state.
The main benefit he's been at times is as a fundraiser. But Obama doesn't really need Clinton's money.
Maybe he helps with some Hillary voters, but Hillary's really more important on the front.
Clinton only matters because he WANTS to matter, and folks in the media WANT him to matter. It makes for good teevee. As it stands, his current relevance on the political scene is fading more quickly because of Barack, and that pisses him off.
Bill saw his mortality a few years ago, just like we all do and/or will, and he is now "raging againt the dying of the light," as we all do and/or will.
Anybody who expects him to go quietly is dreaming.
It's interesting to see public figures dividing into those who get it, who understand why Obama works, and those who don't.
In addition to McCain and Bill, I think Tom Brokaw is a guy who simply can't understand how this effete/liberal/Black/whatever guy could possibly beat the Great White War Hero.
TNC you hit it right on the head in regards to the resistance Obama has encountered with the older political establishment. I dont think it's racism, more likely incredulousness. He's (the O-man) encountered this same push back from the Blk civil rights aristocracy. Imagine being forced to come to the realization that the sky isn't blue, but pink.
sidenote: We've been talking about McCain's body language from the debate, did it not look like Clinton became visibly uncomfortable while talking about Obama? Just a thought.
I’m no Clinton defender, but the case against boomers is refuted by one of the particulars in the indictment against them: that they were failures as parents, proof being how horrible their children turned out to be.
Inter-generational conflict is a divide-and-rule deception. Boomers aren’t more misguided than other age groups.
"Who is" Bill Clinton? One of the greatest presidents, who led this country during 8 years of peace, growth and social justice.
But who the hell is Barack Obama and what does he have to show that even compares to Clinton's record?
My question, Doctor Jay, is where's the knife between McCain's ribs in this interview? At what point does he "use it"?
If you asked Bill Clinton who he'd rather see elected, he'd tell you Obama, and he'd believe he was telling the truth. I fully expect that he'll vote for Obama, and that he thinks that he's doing all he honorably can to help him. But what comes across clearly in this interview, and in so much of what he says these says, is his ambivalence. McCain is a better candidate, a better person, in some ways, Obama in others, and on balance, the scales tip to Obama. That's Bill's position.
And it's a chickenshit position for him to take.
What is your complaint here? Obama simply isn't a "great man." Don't you have to do more than run a brilliant campaign and be the possessor of a high IQ to be a great man? If Obama's a 'great man,' then Bill Clinton was before he even became President. McCain is, on the other hand, a great man in a certain sense, though I'd contend he has certain tragic flaws - impetuousness, lack of discipline, etc. And where do you get the sense that he still doesn't believe that Obama can beat McCain? He says at the very end that swing voters will break Obama's way; he says that Palin will only be a very small help to McCain.
Bill Clinton needs to wake up.
This is the PRESIDENTIAL election and the Democrats have nominated Barack Obama. What that is supposed to mean to Democratic party elites and activists is that you are 100% behind the nominee. These people are supposed to be cheerleaders right now.
If this is the best that Bill Clinton can do for Obama, then maybe he should stay on the sidelines or at least not give interviews on TV. His musings about his feelings for McCain are completely inappropriate at this time given how influential he is within the Democratic party establishment.
Bill Clinton's half hearted support for Obama is what fuels the speculation that the Clintons are just waiting for 2012.
The problem that the Clinton's have with Obama is that, in their world, it was Hillary's turn to be president. Obama and all of the other up and coming Democrats were supposed to wait their turn. Bill clearly wanted a Hillary/Obama ticket because he felt that was fair to both of them given that Obama would still be young enough to run in 2016. The Clintons think that Hillary paid her dues and what was rightfully hers was stolen from her. That is the problem they have with Obama.
"I’m no Clinton defender, but the case against boomers is refuted by one of the particulars in the indictment against them: that they were failures as parents, proof being how horrible their children turned out to be."
I'm not sure where that comes from...
When has Bill Clinton ever convinced someone to vote for someone besides himself? He lost Congress in 1994, Hillary lost this year, Kerry lost. Gore made the (probably right) decision to keep Bill under wraps.
There's obviously plenty of personal ambivalence about Obama. But so what? Who is he going to convince that wouldn't be convinced already?
There's going to be a point in about 20 years where we look back and see Obama as someone who simply shattered long-established patterns of power in this country. I'm increasingly thinking that's why the 'race transcendence' meme is stupid. He's not a transcender, he's a shatterer. He doesn't fit the boxes we inherited from our elders and the punditocracy thinks that is Obama's problem; it's not his problem, it's theirs. This isn't a messianic sort of thing, it's not as if Obama will heal the world and we'll have a socialist utopia. But we are at the cusp of a major rearrangement of American and global life and Obama is the face of our best hopes for that.
Bill Clinton and his legacy are one of those things that must be shattered. He's not happy about it, of course. But think about what happens to the best parts of Clinton's legacy if McCain wins. Clinton knows what the Republicans are all about, he's no fool. (In all honesty, I think a McCain presidency will be like the early years of Putin--a tremendous orgy of kleptocracy leading to an entrenched and dangerous nationalistic regime.) He is going to be increasingly less relevant regardless, but he knows an Obama presidency is a far superior way to become less relevant.
So why do we care about Clinton psychodrama? It tells us something about what an Obama presidency might mean. Other than that, I don't really care.
Asher writes: "McCain is, on the other hand, a great man in a certain sense, though I'd contend he has certain tragic flaws - impetuousness, lack of discipline, etc."
It's possible that McCain was a great man once, though I'm not convinced. But he certainly doesn't merit that description now. He's a cranky visionless geezer who can't stop yammering about earmarks - and sorry, but that's as bogus an issue as flag-burning was. He's going to get his ass kicked in this election because he deserves it.
ML&J, haven't you ever read Tristram Shandy? Every man has his hobbyhorse. McCain sincerely cares a hell of a lot about earmarks - he's just too thick, or too much of a moralizer, to realize they're not a big deal. Not all great men are bright. Now, I suppose someone will say that Obama's a great man because he was the first black to get nominated on a major ticket - but sorry. This isn't Jackie Robinson. The percentage of people who won't vote for him because he's black is probably in the single digits. He doesn't get jeered by bigots wherever he goes, like a Robinson did. This isn't some sort of incredibly courageous act. This is more like JFK in 1960, when anti-Catholic bigotry wasn't nearly what it used to be. Would you call JFK circa 1960 (or even circa 1963) a great man? I wouldn't. Just a great politician.
Its wierd to see Ta-Nehisi and some of the other commenters going through this self-therapy, through this healing process following the primaries.
Your guy won.
Asher: That's a great point, because I totally remember when Catholics were enslaved in this country. Spot on. Besides, in a national election in a divided partisan electorate, when do "single digits" ever matter, right?
I still have this vision of McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Iran" at one of his town hall meetings and, somehow, this does not jive with greatness.
Also, he's my senator, and all I've ever seen in him is a gruff old man with a short fuse.
"All of us who've seriously followed and supported Obama understand that his greatest strength is not that the American people don't get him--but that dispensers of the conventional wisdom don't get him."
Word.
I caucused for Barackus in Iowa, lived through many a screaming matches with my paranoid father, and read most everything I could by him and about him. I understand his flaws (he has worn them on his sleeve) and admire his humility. I am not drinking the Kool-Aid, I am respecting a man who plays to his strengths - rationality, transparency and a cool you can't mess with. That's what most Americans want right now - they just need to be convinced of that. The media (and cynics like my father and others who have grown up in an era where politics was always full of lies and those who played cool were either too good to be true or bound to be shot) cannot handle a thinker. Please God, let America be rid of gut-thinking, secrecy, and impulsiveness. And as NaS says:
"I think Obama provides Hope - and challenges minds
Of all races and colors to erase the hate
And try and love one another, so many political snakes
We in need of a break
Im thinkin' I can trust this brotha
But will he keep it way real?
Every innocent n!gga in jail - gets out on appeal
When he wins - will he really care still?
I feel . . . "
I have faith, and I'm not even religious!
This is a very strong post, THC.
I was a big fan of Clintons during his presidency, but the guy clearly has a blindside. Obama's biggest sin in the primary was not beating Hillary, it was pointing out that the nineties weren't particularly good to the Democratic party or progressive ideas. And he was right.
"We know that Obama isn't a doe in the woods, but a boa quietly and brutally constricting the life out of the opposing campaign."
That's beautiful, brother.
The point, for those of you who don't get it, is that all of the fretting by the media and by Obama supporter over Bill Clintons tepid "support" of Obama is useless. What people aren't noticing is that Bill Clinton's support is becoming less and less valuable to the Obama campaign as the election goes on. Clinton is really in danger of proving his irrelevency. If Obama can win this election without Clinton, who'll need his support in the future?
Bill Clinton is a trip. Whenever someone asks him a direct question designed to measure his support for Obama, he answers the way a playa answers questions from his woman about settling down; vague and non-committal without saying anything that'll cut off his supply(in Clintons case, jeopardize his standing in the Dem party).
It's not about Clinton not saying Obama's a great man. Who cares if he thinks Obama or McCain are great men. That whole discussion came out of Clinton trying to pretend to endorse Obama without actually doing so.
Nope, Catholics were never enslaved, but there's a reason a Catholic never won the Presidency until 1960. Look up the election of 1928 and all the stuff that went on then when Al Smith, a Catholic, ran. Actually, I'll help you out: here's a speech actually delivered on the floor of the Senate during that race.
"Wake up, Americans! Gird your loins for political battle, the like of which you here not seen in all the tide of time in this country. Get ready for this battle. The Roman Catholics of every country on the earth are backing his campaign. Already they are spending money in the South buying up newspapers, seeking to control the vehicles that carry the news to the people. They are sending writers down there from New York and other places to misrepresent and slander our State, all this to build a foundation on which to work for Al Smith for President. The Roman Catholic edict has gone forth in secret articles, “Al Smith is to be made President.” Doctor McDaniel said: “Of all countries the Pope wants to control this country.” "The Knights of Columbus slogan,“ said Doctor Chapman, . . . ”is make America Catholic." Here they tell you in their book that they will force the propaganda of Protestants to cease, they will lay the heavy hand of a Catholic state upon you and crush the life out of Protestantism in America."
I'm not sure I follow your logic when you say McCain's campaign is "eerily similar" to Hillary's primary campaign. I just don't see it. I was an Obama supporter in the primary. I definitely agree with you that one of the most refreshing things about Obama is how the conventional wisdom doesn't get him and how he sometimes leaves pundits flummoxed and the political insiders reaching for their smelling salts while his poll numbers grow.
But come on: Hillary didn't run a very good campaign, but she most certainly didn't run a train wreck like the McCain campaign. The Clinton campaign had some ridiculous reasoning for this and that, but it was still not really anything we hadn't seen before. They didn't say anything quite like "I have foreign policy experience because my state is close to Russia" and Hillary didn't try to win Texas by suspending the campaign and entering a rodeo. I mean, please, she's not insane.
If you mean the trajectory, yeah, maybe. Although McCain is imploding a lot worse than Clinton ever did. But, like I said, Clinton isn't insane (unlike McChaos) so you'd expect her to handle the situation better.
What people aren't noticing is that Bill Clinton's support is becoming less and less valuable to the Obama campaign as the election goes on.
Spot on. Same goes for the "PUMA" people. The Clinton die-hards become less relevant with each passing day.
I'm not sure where that comes from.
T-NC,
Please forgive my hyperbole, I was reacting to a generalization condemning about a fourth of the US population - people born between 1946 and 1964.
If we are interested in progress, we need keep our eye on the ball. The hedgies that Paulson is fronting for are mostly not boomers.
Actually the Clintons are pissed off because the obama campaign stole the primary from them. Check it out - goggle - read it and weep. Obama has been using thus tactics throughout his career. Check it out - his attacks on free speech, his use of intimidation et al. He is the closest we have been to Putin ever. Beware - you may get what you wish for.
A Hillary now McCain supporter.
TNC, you're better at reading text and subtext than this! Let's try to get a bit of perspective on what Slick Willie is up to in that interview. Make the assumption, for purposes of discussion, that Clinton is very interested in seeing Obama win and intends to get some credit for both himself and for Hillary on Nov 4. Now put yourself in Clinton's position and work your way through what he does in the interview. When I watch it, I keep saying to myself, "Damn, he's good!"
Clinton is still a remarkable politician -- just replay his convention speech if you want a reminder. With that in mind, you always have to look at how he's shapiing his message and positioning himself as messenger to certain audiences. Since the primaries, he's deliberately taking a different approach than Hillary, who has turned into a pretty full-throated partisan supporter of Obama in her messsaging to her supporters and her campaign appearances because she's a different type of messenger who is aimed at a different parts of the electorate. He's trying to be a wise, credible messenger to a lot of folks who aren't intensely partisan and who look back to the Clinton years as a better time than now. (Actually, I think he's more credible with that message on behalf of Obama in the general than he was on behalf of Hillary in the primaries, but that's another discussion altogether.)
Bill is not preaching to the converted in that interview but to folks in the middle who are convincable. In themes and style, he's closely matching his message to Obama's own style and themes. So he's not attacking the opponents in personal terms, he's attacking their ideas, programs (or lack thereof), and capacity to solve the country's growing problems. This is the same tack that both Obama and Biden have taken as well, which I realize drives those of us who find McCain such a disappointing sleazeball wild. But we're not the ones who need to be convinced.
Clinton adopts this approach also to enhance his own credibility as messenger. Note how McCain did so poorly in the debate when he kept saying Obama was clueless when Obama was standing right next to him demonstrating he wasn't clueless at all. It's the "your lying eyes" phenomenon. Clinton can't denigrate McCain personally without losing his own crediblity and weakening his message. So he says good things about the McCain personal story that the public "knows" about McCain. He praises McCain for his service and perserverance but not for where he would take the country. So he's using the praise of McCain to set up a subtle denigration of McCain -- the subtext is "old soldier" versus "dynamic leader", past versus future, 20th c versus 21st c. He'll let other surrogates push the Wild Man McCain and Ditzhead Palin memes -- or as someone in comments somewhere called them, the Unstable/Unable ticket. Leave that to others. Or hit those notes at a campaign rally, but not in a sober, reflective interview.
So Clinton plays "honest Bill" -- both about McCain and Obama. It's perfectly appropriate not to praise Obama for something Obama hasn't yet accomplished but praising him for his capacity to accomplish great things -- and for his vision and political skills in beating him and Hillary. That sort of wry, admiring tone about how Obama beat them was pitch perfect!
Bill is working on an emotional level for his target audiences that isn't the same as what motivates enthusiastic Obama or McCain supporters. He's trying to make it easy for reluctant Dems, independents and moderate Repubs -- especially Boomers and seniors -- who like McCain (who has been popular and highly admired for a long time) or who found Palin initially appealing. So Bill doesn't get those listeners' backs up, make them feel defensive about the fact they may admire McCain or find Palin attractive. Instead, Bill is laying the groundwork for them to be comfortable voting FOR Obama without having to juice themselves up to vote AGAINST McCain. If they like Clinton, he's assuring them they can TRUST ol' Bill that this Obama guy knows what he's doing.
Now, I grant you that when Bill went out campaigning for Hillary against Obama he hadn't yet caught up with a lot of the changes you mention in your post, though I think he's getting there. And there's also been some of the Big Dog coming to terms with another younger dog on what Bill has understandably viewed as his turf. He's also continuing to nurture his position as World Leader above the fray and wants to be viewed more as ex-President than ex-Democratic Leader. So his game is complex.
But I think it's a great mistake to write Clinton off as a has-been or condemn him as a lukewarm supporter. He's not dissing our man or secretly plotting Obama's defeat. Clinton is writing his own role and playing it in a way that's entirely consistent with and complementary to Obama's own substantive themes and stylistic tone -- and the way Cliniton thinks is going to be most effective for him to contribute to a win in November. If I were Obama, I'd be sitting there shaking my head in admiration while watching the Brokaw interview.
Dear Asher,
I am not a moron and am familiar with Al Smith, as well as the long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. Yours is still a lousy comparison, and one that betrays a real misunderstanding of US history. Was the country founded on anti-Catholic bigotry? No. Did Irish Catholics integrate into the mainstream of American life by becoming white, adopting the prejudicial attitudes of Protestants, and saying, "At least I'm not a Negro!"? Yes. Does this make the election of Obama extremely different from the election of JFK? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Thanks,
smAsher
You forgot the NEXT part -- yeah, President Clinton is about the past, especially when, insha'allah, Obama wins.
But what about the future? Remember the old Chinese curse: may you get what you wish for.
Starting a Presidency with a first year budget deficit approaching a trillion, a global credit crisis that is just starting to bite with rising US unemployment, AND an energized American left that somehow can't get their heads around the simple fact that 100 or so Democratic members of the House majority will be right of center... well, SUCCEEDING at the Presidency may make winning it look easy.
Actually the Clintons are pissed off because the obama campaign stole the primary from them. Check it out - goggle - read it and weep. Obama has been using thus tactics throughout his career. Check it out - his attacks on free speech, his use of intimidation et al. He is the closest we have been to Putin ever. Beware - you may get what you wish for.
A Hillary now McCain supporter.
After reading your first paragraph, I'm not at all surprised by your final sentence. That is, to put it simply, piles of stupid.
Gotcha Watson. And Nadez I don't think Clinton's a has-been, I just fail to see how--specifically--he's actually relevant to the campaign, at this point.
nadezhda: you are out of your damn mind. Honestly, I'm in awe that you can contort yourself so bad you can't see what's right in front of you. Clinton doesn't like Obama and doesn't think it matters if he wins. I laughed out loud at your last sentence, it was so ridiculous.
My point, smAsher, is merely that the degree of difficulty for Obama as the first black major candidate isn't really so high. The fact that a really long time ago this would be impossible doesn't make the achievement any more impressive in the here and now. He's overcome a real but not very large bias in the electorate. I give him more credit for knocking off an overwhelming favorite in Hillary than his being the first black to run on a major ticket.
Once again,what is Clinton talking about? He's twisting himself into knots trying to be analytical about the race to prove that he is being thoughtful and mature instead of bitter. Also, what was that point he made about African-Americans saying that race trumped party, who said that, when? What more need be said about the whole thing, aren't you suppose to be talking about your global initiative?
IMO, Clinton's importance is mostly a consequence of his being a pretty solid President, thus eliminating the Carter stigma from Dems.
If one believes that 1968/1972 - 2008 has been the age of Reagan, then Clinton did a lot of good in showing that the Dems: (a) Could keep the economy on an even till (something Carter completely screwed up); (b) Not be over-taxers (a stigma going back to LBJ, I think); (c) Not be a wuss when it's time to use force (again, the perception after Carter - and that was definitely Carter, because nobody would have doubted LBJ's taste for force).
Obama is clearly benefiting from the inherited perception that Dems are better for the economy/are good stewards for the finances of the country, and for that, Clinton gets credit. Ultimately, there is some doubt (not unreasonably) about Obama's ability to deal with foreign threats.
IMO, Obama is either going to be launching missiles somewhere to prove he's willing to do it (I mean missiles to get Al-Qaeda types, not nuke missiles) or will seriously up the ante in Afghanistan soon after he becomes President.
One final thought - demographically, the electoral map progressively got worse from Gore to Kerry (traditionally blue states had less EC votes than traditionally red states). Kerry was unable to make inroads in Bush 2000 States, other than NH (ironically, Gore would have won if he'd carried NH), to the point that Gore plus NH was still a loss for Kerry.
Demographic trends, the political climate of the country and Obama's skills have put some states into play which hadn't been in play in recent times (Virginia and Colorado, and to a lesser extent, Nevada and North Carolina). I think this is a very important development, because it will help Obama to govern in a better way (if Obama's victory path does not go through Florida, I'm willing to bet money he quickly opens up relations with Cuba, which will actually benefit him in the Mid West and even in Louisiana).
Ok, that's it for me.....
Asher - who's that Senate speech against Al Smith from? It's implied to be from a Southerner, which suggests that it was actually given by a Democrat.
At any rate, Nadezhda's post seems crazy to me as well. I saw that interview, and I saw about as lame an endorsement of Obama as I could imagine. He's asked about Palin, and he can't bring himself to criticize her. He talks about McCain, and can't bring himself to criticize McCain's utterly outrageous behavior over the last week. Unbelievable.
Wow...right on, I think. I had exactly the same reaction when I read a post about Clinton behavior in MTP this morning. Who the fuck cares? And I didn't get mad either. I even didn't watch the video.
ohfercryinoutloud: Obama didn't steal the nomination from Senator Clinton. You can make a pretty solid case that she LOST it -- failing to organize in caucus states was pretty stupid -- but that just underscores that Obama had a superior strategy.
It's not like he didn't have advantages, either: he was a kind of "not Clinton" candidate for a lot of people, with a solid base at a time when other not-Clinton candidates (like Edwards) might have emerged as the main alternative, but didn't. Can't take a thing away from him -- good organization, few mistakes and, let's face it, a certain amount of luck: what's not to like?
I wanna say one thing about the Big Dog: he was (is) in a unique position. He's the first Democratic President to win two terms since FDR, and he's the only President whose wife has ever run for the office herself -- never mind his other peculiar idiosyncracies, like the infamous impeachment. It's hard to know how ANY former President is supposed to act in his situation, in either the primaries or the general; nobody's ever been in it before.
Other former Presidents had a sort of tradition to fit into, for their political afterlife: Eisenhower (barely) tried to help Nixon get elected, Reagan gave his own VP, Bush I, a big lift; but LBJ was toxic for Humphrey. Carter couldn't help Mondale, and if he did anything to help Clinton, nobody noticed.
The usual Rule is for former Presidents isn't partisan, it's to be sort of Above It All, and find something characteristic to do, more or less out of sight: Carter has Habitat, Ford served on corporate boards. The Big Dog hasn't quite adjusted.
I predict the Obama-Clinton relationship that is gonna count will be the new President with the Senator, and the more the former President is missing from that political alliance, the better off everybody is gonna be.
Cotton Tom Heflin, John. A pretty bigoted guy. His nephew, Howell Heflin, was in the Senate as late as 1997. One of the crazier things on his Wikipedia entry:
In 1908, while a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he shot and seriously wounded a black man that confronted him on a Washington streetcar. Although indicted, Heflin had the charges dismissed. In subsequent campaigns, he bragged of the shooting as one of his major career accomplishments.
Ta-Nehisi, you are so wrong on this one.
This is going to be a margin thin election...every vote matters. That's why we should care what Clinton says, doesn't say, implies, etc.
What do you think will happen if the country is attacked, or some other similar incident happens right before the election?
Clinton's entire strategy is about planting seeds. He's hoping that enough swing voters will go into polling booths and say I like Obama, but the responsible thing to do is vote for John McCain.
I think Clinton is bitter that much of his base has left him. He was once the first black President, then a few months back he was being called out for using the race card. Once liberal sites delighted in calling him "The Big Dawg" yet in early 2008, there were tons of diaries expressing regret for ever having defended his lies, his corporatism, his welfare bashing and his selling of pardons.
His behavior really is weird, this week he gave Republicans cover on the Fannie Mae issue and blamed democrats for not supporting greater oversight.
I'm not a fan of the Clintons. I really, really, really had problems with Hillary and the way she ran her campaign.
That said, I'm more inclined to nadezhda's position than more suspicious readings of Clinton. If you want to go after the conservative Democrat vote that was particularly drawn to Hillary, this is how you do it. We're talking about voters who are never going to feel connected to Obama; and who are naturally drawn to McCain. You don't win those voters by knocking down the guy whose service they respect. You win them over by saying that his service does deserve respect, but he's still wrong for the country. You aren't going to convince them that Obama, who really *is* inexperienced is already a great man. What you do is say that based on your knowledge of his intelligence and what he's accomplished so far, you believe that he will be a great president.
If I'm on Obama's campaign staff, this is exactly what I want Bill to do. I might like it better if he did it out on the road in the places he worked so well on Hillary's behalf. But it's also fine as is.
And seriously, the voters who are the target of this sort of pitch just aren't going to buy it if Bill suddenly gets Obama fever. Who would? This is far more effective because far more credible. Grudging respect and complete support for the proposition that Obama should be president.
I see both of the Clintons as real allies. And frankly that surprises me, because I was of the Sullivan school of thought with respect to both of them all the way through the primaries.
I completely agree with this piece. Why do we care? It's true that many of Obama's advisers are Clinton's leftover cold french fries. That is a shame, but to be expected... you didn't think this was a revolution, did ya?!
But an Obama administration will be without the sick tricks, errant penis, and dirty South racism of Bill Clinton. Yay. That is enough for me. Out you go, arrogant condescending white liberals. There is nothing sadder than an over the hill white man drooling with jealousy over a handsome, fit, intelligent man of color. Sorry Clinton, you have made yourself irrelevant on this one.
More Ghostface Quality lines....not to mention the obvious mobb deep hook....Continue mastering 120. Sorry about the cowgirls. Go Racial Slurs I mean Redskins!!!
Palin will only be a very small help to McCain.
Posted by Asher | September 28, 2008 8:40 PM
Presumably, in much the same way that a brick helps an elderly and confused seagull to get off the ground.
@TNC -- OK, so you say Bill's not a has-been, just that we shouldn't care one way or another whether he helps. I agree that spending a smidgen of angst on how much Clinton does on behalf of Obama is a waste of angst which could be expended more profitably elsewhere.
But I don't agree that he's not relevant as an important asset the campaign can use and use well. And I strongly disagree with those who think he was being a douchebag in the interview. People are expending way too much aggro on Clinton's failure to rave about Obama and trash McCain and Palin. I think it was a carefully calibrated performance in support of Obama winning.
Clinton is highly relevant to swingish voters in key demographics in battleground states -- exactly the areas that started to shift this past week toward Obama but need to be expanded and solidified. Even though the Obama registration drives and GOTV are awesome, we can't count on all the new voters. Hopefully they'll turn out, but they're also the ones who will be the targets of voter suppression. The long lines, the inadequate or malfunctioning voting machines, the ID and registration challenges and so forth.
If we don't want to be checking chads for months again, we need to get up to Kerry+ levels with seniors and blue collar and exurb neighborhoods in a number of states, not just in Ohio. These tend to be reliable voters -- high turnout and not targets of voter suppression -- and since they're going to vote in large numbers, we need them to vote Obama. But he has typically underperformed with them.
There are a number of possible roads to 270 and Obama needs to keep as many of those roads open to force McCain to keep defending. Frex, we need to erode just a bit McCain's margins in SW Virginia where Warner does well so Northern Va can take Obama over the top. We need the traditional Fla Dems to not get wobbly because Obama is too young or black or risky on Israel. And we need to lock in what are still uncomfortably narrow margins in Michigan and PA.
Bill Cliinton is relevant with all those groups. Those were the sorts of folks he was starting to court in that interview with Brokaw. And that's the way the Obama campaign will use him -- I saw somewhere he's already booked to campaign with Biden in NE PA Oct 12.
Look, the past week or so has been extremely troubling for a lot of people who don't pay attention to politics, and passing the Paulson plan isn't going to cure anything, it will just (hopefully) forestall total immediate meltdown. The news is going to get steadily worse, not better. There's a total vacuum of leadership in this country right now, which is going to make people increasingly anxious, and McCain is going to try to exploit that for all it's worth. Bush isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. And Paulson and the Congressional leadership don't inspire confidence. Clinton is, for a lot of people older than you, one of the few people who retain some admiration of a lot of people in this country. His authority as a credible, sober validator of Obama will be valuable with many people who are only lukewarm about Obama or who might be swayed by a "he's too risky, too unknown" argument.
I agree that all of the power structures (poltical, economic, generational, national and global) are shifting dramatically and the old pros -- politicians and media -- are scrambling to get their heads around the fact that politics isn't working like it's supposed to. A lot of them feel threatened because reality isn't matching the world in their heads. And Obama is finding ways to tap those changes, leaving the old players bemused at best and antagonistic at worst.
But in the last month of the campaign, we're not talking about crumbling power structures and outdated narratives but whether Clinton can credibly tap into audiences Obama needs with a convincing message.
@smAsher -- Please, let's be adults. It doesn't matter a hoot to either Clinton or Obama whether they like each other. Their objectives for the next 5+ weeks are the same -- win a very winnable election.
Clinton sees McCain on the verge of losing, if not going down in flames. He's not going to try to defeat Obama. Neither Bill nor Hillary are suddenly going to have more power in a McCain-led disastrous four years by comparison with their positions if Obama wins. And Bill is definitely not going to want his own (and Hillary's) power position eroded if Obama wins and he didn't help out.
That's why he gave that grand performance at the convention. And Bill probably enjoyed all the ridiculous media buildup "Will he or won't he" to his speech. Just drew more attention and added extra drama and impact. His interviews are another way of getting more attention for his appearances when he goes on the road. He'll keep adjusting his tone and style as the election gets closer, the temperature of the rallies and ads gets higher and the level of discourse gets nastier, and he's performing before different audiences. And the Obama campaign will pick the audiences where Bill's performances will have the greatest impact within their strategy.
Maggie writes: You don't win those voters by knocking down the guy whose service they respect. You win them over by saying that his service does deserve respect, but he's still wrong for the country.
But Clinton's not really doing that. Lavishing praise on McCain and then simply saying "but the other guy is better" isn't going to "win over" any voters.
I have a slightly different take: I think the way to read Clinton is that he's still sore from Hillary's loss, and that his attempt to overcome it and praise Obama makes his lukewarm praise mean more than would more fulsome praise from someone who isn't still sore. (Oh dear, I don't think I'm explaining this.)
First, I think there is this unwarranted nostalgia and overestimation of Bill's political skills. Bill Clinton only won 43 percent of the vote against the first Bush and couldn't break 50 against DOLE - even though the country was certainly "on the right track" in most people's eyes and the Lewinsky scandal hadn't yet broke. (GW got just over 50% in his re-election, with much worse national conditions.) Clinton was certainly a strong politician with some amazing attributes - but LOTS of people did not like - and certainly didn't trust - him.
Simply, a Democrat receiving a pure majority for the first time in 30 years would be a major feat. A BLACK Democrat achieving this would be incredible, even if the "conditions" are ripe for a Democratic victory. That that looks ever more likely marks Obama as a damn good, once-in-a-generation politician.
Also, not to engage in a dead-end argument with Asher, but I think that the point that we're not living in the 60s anymore and that there's not more than a single-digit percent of voters who simply won't vote for the black guy misses the mark completely. I'll concede that likely
I agree with mo regarding the overestimation of Clinton. Really, people like nadezhda are acting like Bill's petulance is some kind of extra-clever bankshot when it just clearly ain't. I see no evidence whatsoever for your proposition that Obama and Bill have the same objective. What's your evidence of that?
The crazy thing is that both Clintons did a terrific job at the convention, and Hillary really followed it up afterward. But Bill's public behavior continues to project a belief that McCain is a safer choice, and I don't know why you think this is a clever fake-out.
This is the kind of crap that Dems used to pull all the time with Rove -- no matter what that moron did, you could count thousands of Dems to think it was part of a super-clever secret plan and we were falling into his trap, etc. Even when they cleaned his clock in 2006, people were going off about how he wanted it that way. Look, sometimes the truth is the first thing you think, not the second or third or tenth.
For some reason, my post got cut off. Here's what I said:
Also, not to engage in a dead-end argument with Asher, but I think that the point that we're not living in the 60s anymore and that there's not more than a single-digit percent of voters who simply won't vote for the black guy misses the mark completely. I'll concede that likely > 10% of voters who may have voted for a white Democrat will absolutely not vote for a black one. But a) that may be enough to make the difference and b) that doesn't mean that Obama's race is not a significant "negative" that he has to overcome for many voters. I don't always believe the adage that "a black man has to be twice as good just to compete" but I think for some voters this is the case. Certainly, Obama's race is a plus for some but I think that was relevant only in the primaries, really, as most of those voters are strongly in the Democratic column.
What Clinton has either failed to notice about McCain, or is ignoring hoping that he wins and that Hillary can run in 2012 is that: the guy isn't very bright, makes really poor decisions, is running a disorganized mess of a campaign; knows squat about economic issues and learned so little from Vietnam that he supported Iraq.
In other words Bill, do you think this guy would really make a good President, or be an abject and dangerous failure?
Forgetting Obama, does he in fact deserve your praise?
The simplest theory is most often the most accurate.
Bill Clinton means what he says -- he likes John McCain, AND he is a loyal Democrat who want Obama to win. He's touchy about being non recognized for what he did for the Democratic Party and the country. He's still a little bitter about the primaries and he feels that he got set up as a bad guy with some manufactured racial outrage.
Everybody parses everything he says for the layers and layers of hidden meanings, signals and feints and misdirections, but I think he just says whatever occurs to him at the rush of the moment and argument -- just like most people, especially extroverts.
The main thing is that he is not the Big Dog anymore. He isn't moving one person's vote in either direction right now. If he gets busy and campaigns, he might shore up some support here and there, but less than we think. Ex-Presidents don't move the undecided; they speak to the base.
bill clinton is the most over-rated democratic president of the 20th century. any close look at his actions, non-actions, and reactions to events will reveal an extension of the republican ideology that flowered under reagan; a damaging number of failures to act such as somalia, and rwanda; and knowingly lying to the american people about the lewinsky debacle that rendered him impotent [of all galling things, to him] during his second term as president.
my observation of clinton is that he wants obama to lose the election, no matter what that would mean for the country and the world. that would be in keeping with the history of his life. he is a little man, a cruel man, and is the personification of hypocrisy. he is a person of no consequence and will fade from memory faster than an old polaroid photo. good riddance.
Mo, you're right - Obama's certainly a damn good, once-in-a-generation politician and talent. He combines a first-rate mind with a first-rate temperament and pretty strong political skills. But 'great man' doesn't mean 'brilliant liberal electioneer.' I think Clinton's quite right when he says that Obama would have to turn out to be a great officeholder, not just a great campaigner for office, before we can call him a great man.
Clinton matters because he's an ex-pres, one of the few people who could actually help in building a strong and lasting Democratic dynasty, supposedly "the first black president," Got TONS of help from black supporters over the years"...
He's supposedly "slick willy" and we certainly know he can LIE with the best of 'em
He can't even suck up his pride and lie a little for Obama right now? Oh, I'm sorry THAT would make him look cheap? cigars and blowjobs and semen on dresses didn't do that for him.
I've noticed, TNC, that in lieu of fighting some of the fights on the subject of obvious racism, you have a tendency to just want to squash it and say "aw shucks, what are we so mad about anyways?"
Asher, I don't disagree with you, or ultimately, with Clinton that Obama merely now has the potential to be a great man. I wasn't wading into the specifics of what Clinton says in this video - just saying that I think we have a tendency to not only over-rate Clinton's importance now, but also make him larger in retrospect than he really was.
But, also, what I would say to a friend about Obama is different from what I would say if he I were on national tv and acting as a surrogate. WJC is certainly someone who can finesse facts or opinions, if not to lie, at least to put them in the best light. He doesn't do that here. There could be a million motives here - maybe he thinks this will resonate more with the skeptics (I read a convincing post somewhere about how the Obama campaign needs to create Skeptics for Obama to convey the sense that you don't have to buy into the hype to vote for him); maybe he's bitter for Hillary; maybe he feels his legacy being threatened by an upstart; or maybe, he's lived a lifetime as a politician and now just wants to say what he thinks.
Thank you for this. I for one am getting mighty sick of the brainless repetition of the "Bill is/was the greatest politician of our era" meme. Don't get me wrong: I supported him both in '92 and '96, but let's be honest. The Big Dog won in '92 largely because of a third-party drain on the GOP votes and again in '96 largely because of the GOP's nominating a perfectly affable fellow who transformed into a zombified caricature as candidate (sound familiar?). The self-same folks that were so adamant about Hillary in the primaries and continue (it seems) to castigate Senator Obama for (choose your own armchair-venture) either: (a) failing to hit McCain hard enough in ads/debates/appearances, (b) "moving to the center" during the GE on their pet issue(s), and/or (c) surrendering too much rhetorical space in the form of "John is right, but..." per the first debate must be indulging in selective amnesia. I mean, how do you think the Big Dog actually managed the Executive branch during his stint(s)? The 90s-eta Clintonian triangulation on any number of issues -- from welfare "reform" to the health care debacle -- makes Obama's FISA vote, e.g., seem downright Kucinichesque.
I say this as a loyal former supporter of then-President Clinton: the longer we (i.e., all of us left of Ted Nugent) keep apologizing for / rationalizing / justifying Bill's objectively puzzling behavior, the longer he'll feel justified in toying with both his party's and his nation's future in giving his apparently boundless ego free reign. McCain may be vainly tilting at Viet Cong windmills, but the longer we Dems (and related allies) continue giving Bill a pass on refighting his arguably self-imposed late 90s battles at the expense of ACTUAL political and civic priorities, the longer he'll indulge in same.
The 90s were no Democratic golden age: they were a maddening betrayal of a superficial, feel-good pragmatism, the very thing GOP dead-enders now accuse Senator Obama of selling. God help us all if Bill Clinton succeeds in torpedoing a genuine change agent in the interest of either his or his wife's purported legacy.
Bill is assuming a unique role, that of the very senior statesman who is beyond having to contribute enthusiasm to the cause -- the cause being an Obama victory. He reflects, he takes the longer view, he mildly condescends and opines on such issues as personal greatness; for this interview, he is history's mouthpiece, not thrumming to the fierce urgency of now. It's the tone of a very old man -- an eminence, a sage -- not a man barely past middle age, which Bill is. One difference between him and Hillary is that she has stayed hungry, and will keep singing for her supper. As for Bill, he can't destroy Obama -- but he can judge him, right out loud. It matters, because the intricacies of a shift in power such as we are seeing in the Democratic Party are meaningful and compelling to behold, like the transit of Venus.
I'm not going to comment on Bill Clinton, except insofar as to express my annoyance that so many people are still praising McCain. The man is an utter crook. He is a compulsive liar who is, **at best**, as competent and trustworthy as Bush, and is probably even worse. The Keating Five scandal answered once and for all the question of how honorable McCain is, and that was *twenty* years ago. Why aren't otherwise intelligent people, such as President Clinton, observing this?
And don't give me any nonsense about the media narrative being in McCain's favor. It isn't anymore, and anyway it can only change when people start pushing back against it. "You say that McCain is an honorable man, but look at how he dumped his first wife. And how he was smack in the middle of Keating Five. And his terrible temper tantrums. And his amazing ignorance toward his 'strong' fields of defense and foreign policy. And the amazingly slimy campaign he's been running."
McCain is, at best, as honorable and trustworthy as Bush, and democrats need to really push that. Particularly the visible leaders like Clinton. *Obama* needs to stay above the fray, but his surrogates can and should be shouting this from the rooftops. I just can't figure out why they don't. Are they afraid to, or do they not realize what kind of man McCain really is?
Not to pile on Slick Willie, or to suggest that Gingrich/Dole policies would have been better, but for the Clinton/Rubin crew to take credit for the relatively good economic times in the ‘90s is like McCain taking credit for the Blackberry.
The ‘90s tech boom was driven by some significant IT developments, and even more so by the Y2K scare, when companies brought a lot of programmers and redundant hardware online in a 'surge' of hiring and purchasing that has not been reproduced.
I just don't think that Obama needs Clinton to lie or equivocate about his great man-status in order to win the election. He's going to win anyway. Besides, if he turned into an enthusiastic surrogate, what would be the point? You'd all say he was pretending anyway, and it would come off as insincere. This guarded endorsement rings true at least.
Asher writes: "I suppose someone will say that Obama's a great man because he was the first black to get nominated on a major ticket - but sorry. This isn't Jackie Robinson. The percentage of people who won't vote for him because he's black is probably in the single digits. He doesn't get jeered by bigots wherever he goes, like a Robinson did."
He does online, and on Fox News. The bigots have been smearing him non-stop during this campaign, and it continues every single day. That they're not so willing to do it in person probably reflects the fact that they'd get punched in the mouth if they tried it in public. But it's still okay on Rush's show.
The conservative movement is the last great refuge for racists. You can deny that if you want, but check out the folks who still use Steve Sailer as a resource sometime.
Anti-Clinton leftists are a lead weight around the Democratic part's neck. To these leftists, it's always Clinton's fault, isn't it. It's Clinton's fault Gore lost in 2000; not because of all the lefties voting for Nader or tepidly "supporting" Gore because he wasn't liberal enough. Open your eyes dip-shits. Middle America hates you. Obama should be leading McCain by twenty points - you know why he's not? Of course you THINK you do -'it's cause he's black and they're all racists'. No. It's because Middle America - you know, half the country - HATES self righteous, pompous, incompetent 'piss-on-the-flag' loser ultra-liberals. They don't trust you to run the country and they're afraid Obama is one of you. Anti-Clinton leftists are just like Bush - unwilling to admit failure or take responsibility for their mistakes in judgement. It's always a war with the other side. The truth is, assuming Obama wins in spite of the anti-Clinton left (and thats a big "if"), you're going to be really disappointed to find that Obama is - at best - a lot like 'Slick Willy'. That is, willing and eager to cut deals with the "enemies" on the right and throw the religious left under the bus whenever it's convenient. As for Clinton not trashing McCain, has it ever occurred to you that maybe that doesn't help you win elections? Has it maybe occurred to you that showing respect for a guy who spent five years in a prison camp is the act of a decent fucking human being and a smart politician? Of course that doesn't occur to the religious left. Only strict liberal dogma and angry cynicism can be appreciated by many commentators above. Fuck the religious right and fuck the religious left. You two deserve each other and together you're ruining this country.
This isn't Jackie Robinson. The percentage of people who won't vote for him because he's black is probably in the single digits. He doesn't get jeered by bigots wherever he goes, like a Robinson did."
The percentage of votes that typically dictate who WINS a given Presidential contest is usually in the single digits. You're willfully ignoring questions of context, here. As for the "jeering" point -- you're partly right: it's less socially acceptable to echo overtly racist sentiments in certain social situations. But having sitting federal lawmakers dismiss you as "uppity" against the backdrop of a fear-and-smear ad push from your (white) opponent simply indicates the extent to which proponents of the Southern Strategy have elected (wisely though cowardly) to hide between code words and loaded imagery.
The bigots aren't necessarily jeering the Senator from Illinois to his face -- but this observation itself is question-begging. Presumably there's a legitimate for Senator Obama receiving Secret Service protection far, far earlier in the election season than any presidential aspirant in history. Hence, it is thankfully unlikely that any "jeering bigot" will now get within 50 feet of Senator Obama precisely because the existence of said bigots renders necessary Secret Service protection.
Your undersupported claims refute themselves in light of the empirical evidence, moreover. Black students opposed to his nomination (largely on objections viewed through what can only be described as a "critical race" lens) interrupted Obama's speech at the University of Miami just this month. While downplayed by most media and the Obama campaign itself, there have been a rash of undebatably racially-motivated crimes directed at local Obama campaign offices across these "united" states. We're talking multiple instances of racial slurs spray-painted across Obama offices with their windows smashed out and their doors broken in. The campaign is too noble (and too politically astute) to push these stories, much less lend credence to them, but that doesn't make these barbaric offenses disappear. In short: race still matters. ESPECIALLY in the U.S.A.
In shot, Senator Obama has had to navigate the Scylla and Charbydis of American white/black race-relations effectively since his youth, but certainly since he decided to seek the Presidency. Precisely like Jackie Robinson, he'll need to be perceived as three times his opponent's superior if his latent abilities are to prevail against the all-too-predictably racialized double-standard for black American citizens. Don't be so quick to dismiss today's racial reality, sir. And don't be so arrogant as to presume to know the extent of the obstacles -- racial, yes, but cultural and socioeconomic to be sure -- the next President of the United States had to overcome.
Part of the privilege of being white in America is that we are so rarely called out on our casual dismissals of the very white privilege we constantly enjoy. And spare me the "liberal guilt" bullshit. I can acknowledge fundamentally unjust disparities in how wealth and power are distributed across particular demographics without surrendering my individual ability to act and react accordingly in light of the disparities we've inherited. In this limited sense the knee-jerk reactionary is right: "I didn't own no slaves!" is technically true but irrelevant in light of the larger observation that, well, somebody did.
Nathan: So, now it's a crime to hold political positions to your left? Give me a fucking break. Clinton was a lousy president. Raise your standards a little, huh? At least Obama's not going to execute some retarded guy to win a primary like Clinton did with his disgusting grandstanding about Ricky Ray Rector.
But -- and here's my Obama-like attempt to find common ground -- yes, I do agree that Obama will likely govern more like Clinton than I would like. Look at that, though! I'm a crazy leftist fanatic that you wish would die, but I'm still going to work to elect someone who I know will disappoint me. Whoa, a pragmatic leftist -- what a mindfuck for you!
The percentage of votes that typically dictate who WINS a given Presidential contest is usually in the single digits. You're willfully ignoring questions of context, here.
Sure, it's possible that he could lose because of his race. I didn't say that race couldn't cost him the election. If he loses narrowly, there's a good chance that race will have been a cause. But running with a 6-point disadvantage, if you buy the AP race poll, is just that - running with a 6-point disadvantage. Every candidate has something that costs them 6 points one way or another. Don't you think Al Gore lost 6 percent of the vote he could've gotten because of, to put it politely, his unctuous personality? Does it therefore follow that, because he won the popular vote in spite of his obnoxious mannerismsn, he's some kind of hero? Of course not. Conversely, I'm sure Bush lost 6 points he could've had because he was so inarticulate. But he's not a hero because he overcame his inarticulateness and won. Again, this isn't Jackie Robinson. There's a very small group of voters whose votes are determined by race, and they're not very vocal. I'll happily concede that Obama's a brilliant politician and perhaps the most personally admirable national politician in a generation, but that's all prologue to history's ultimate verdict. If the economy doesn't improve on his watch and the voters kick him out, he's just another Jimmy Carter. A more disappointing Jimmy Carter at that.
Asher: I am dying to know: what do you have invested in denying the significance of Obama's race and his history-making candidacy? It seems like you've attached a lot of personal significance to this Jackie Robinson thing -- are you still mad the Dodgers left Brooklyn or something? Or are you one of those white people who needs to convince everyone that race totally doesn't matter any more, so you can get away with your own little private prejudices?
"Every candidate has something that costs them 6 points one way or another"? Again, are you out of your damn mind? It's not like unctuous people had to use separate water fountains in living memory.
Soft sale.
Bill's said more than once now that Obama doesn't need the people who love him; he needs the people who don't. As a raging liberal myself, I'd like people to be disgusted by John McCain and the campaign he's run, but there are plenty of people where that just plain isn't happening. For the people who can be turned against him, we have Hillary (and a host of others, not least among them Biden and Obama himself). For others, we have Bill.
Bill Clinton gives voters permission to like John McCain and still vote against him, which is damned important because without that permission they are still going to like him. We don't need another partisan warrior; we need a salesman who can empathize with the American people, share their values, honor their heroes, and then quietly suggest to them that those things are not incompatible with voting for the better candidate.
And who better? The man is outrageously popular and more importantly, insanely well-related to. Fact is, Bill Clinton didn't win on "It's the Economy, Stupid". He won the same way Dubya did; by being the better guy to have a beer with, though he was never so crass as to make that the centerpiece of his campaign.
I love Obama. I can't personally think of anyone still alive I'd rather drink with. Many people don't feel the same. Bill Clinton is a comfort to those people; he says, "Hey, we understand you. We value you. We get why you'd consider John McCain. Values. Heroism. But you know what? It actually *is* the economy."
I can't believe people on the left don't see this. Have we really absorbed the media narrative about the self-obsessed, lying, cheating Clintons? Even their advocates and allies these days have ceded their honor; it's pathetic.
TNC, I love you buddy, but you're off the mark here. Bill is performing an incredibly important function that no one else could right now. He's perfectly positioned to be believable *and* relatable, and it's a testament to his skill that as a 90's icon of partisanship he's managed to fill the roll of post-partisan statesman (or salesman).
Why do we care about Bill Clinton? We care because we respect him. We care because he earned it. We care for the same reason we care about Ted Kennedy; the blessing of an elder *means something*.
At least Obama's not going to execute some retarded guy to win a primary like Clinton did with his disgusting grandstanding about Ricky Ray Rector.
I'm no big Clinton fan, but I have to say my impression of the Rector execution changed quite a bit when I discovered that Rector was retarded because he botched shooting himself in the head... after murdering two people.
Barbar: I'm well aware of the circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that it is among the most appalling offenses I can imagine to incorporate an execution into one's campaign to win New Hampshire. An execution is a serious enough matter that it should never, ever be used to showboat for votes (and let's not forget the racial angle here, either, since you can be sure Clinton didn't consider the optics of being tough on crime by presiding over the killing of a black criminal).
Besides, what is the point of executing Rector? Yeah, he basically lobotomized himself -- isn't that punishment enough? It's not exactly like he was a recidivist threat.
TNC, I love your writing and blogging, especially this past week. But I'm surprised you reacted this way. I hear Bill Clinton offering genuine, honest compliments to Obama. His careful choice of words makes them stronger, because it sounds like he means every word.
He says he's sure Obama's greatness will emerge (that is, present tense greatness ready to emerge when given the opportunity to serve as President). That's not an underhanded compliment IMO. You have to listen carefully, because he isn't talking in sound bites (which some may fault him for but I consider a mark of his honesty in this conversation).
I'm a huge Obama supporter, and I was as angry as anyone at certain tactics of the Clintons in the primary. But here I sense the genuine admiration of a vanquished rival. Maybe he's old school and still doesn't know what hit him (as you say), but I give lots of respect and gratitude for saying, unequivocally, that Obama is the best choice (and that he will be a great President).
Why do people have so much invested in insisting that race won't cost Barack Obama in this election, that he is, somehow, NOT a trailblazer who doesn't face the same type of bigotry that we would expect the first legitimate black presidential candidate to face and that Bill Clinton is always right?
That's just a question.
Asher you need to have your head examined. I completely agree with sMasher. You are, for some odd reason, deeply invested in INSISTING on denying the trail-blazing aspect of Obama and the amount of bigotry he faces.
I just wonder why.
bill clinton is the most over-rated democratic president of the 20th century. any close look at his actions, non-actions, and reactions to events will reveal an extension of the republican ideology that flowered under reagan
As someone who is usually to the right of Bill CLinton, I agree with your assessment. Too many on the right were blinded by their hatred of him to realize that economically, Clinton was probably to the right of Nixon. Too many on the left were so interested in power that they felt that criticism of Clinton shouldn't done too loudly or at all.
Clinton was a free trader, deregulator, death penalty advocate who signed DOMA and caused media consolidation. He did more to deregulate the financial industry than any elected official. He did raise taxes when he took office, in a plan that he said made him an "Eisenhower Republican". It actually was GHW Bush republicanism because it was very similar to Bush 41's tax increase in 90. While he raised taxes early in his term, he gave plenty of tax cuts to the rich in the later part of his Presidency.
I care because I went to the wall for that man during Lewinsky and I damn well expected him to play ball after HRC left this campaign. He's a good enough actor, I don't expect him to campaign if he can't stomach it but this passive aggressive shit KILLS me.
Giving HRC her due: she has NOT pulled this crap and I appreciate the hell out of the professionalism. I have no doubt she's waiting for Obama to trip; but she's making the moves she's got to make for her party. Because she's a PROFESSIONAL.
I used to think of Bill Clinton in the same way; not any more.
Here's the funny thing, this tone that he's taking now is the one he should have taken during the primaries, where he just keeps Obama's name out of his mouth and generally talks up both people. Clinton's a gifted politician, but when he gets on the wrong foot, he can't get off.
"Asher... You are, for some odd reason, deeply invested in INSISTING on denying the trail-blazing aspect of Obama and the amount of bigotry he faces."
It's abundantly clear that Obama is a trailblazing candidate and I wouldn't downplay the historic aspect of his campaign to nearly the extent that Asher did. However, I think in one important sense his analogy to the anti-Catholic bias that JFK faced is accurate: the depth and fervor of racism in America, while still disgraceful, has dropped to a level where a gifted black candidate can be elected President of the United States in spite of it.
It would obviously be a false equivalence to compare the history and legacy of racism against African-Americans--slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching--to the legacy of anti-Catholic bias, which was largely a matter of negative stereotypes, informal discrimination, and de facto segregation.
But in present-day America, racism generally takes the form of negative stereotypes, informal discrimination, and de facto segregation. America has changed greatly, for the better, in the 60 years since Jackie Robinson pulled on a Dodger uniform. A guy named Barack Obama wouldn't have had an 8 point lead in the Gallup Presidential tracking poll in September 1948.
So I would argue that the following two statements are simultaneously true:
An Obama victory will be far more historically significant than Kennedy's victory because of the far greater historical wrongs that he has overcome. But the level of open, unconcealed bigotry Obama faces in 2008 is probably not much higher than the level JFK faced.
asher apparently forgets this country's violent history when he writes that "This isn't some sort of incredibly courageous act."
nothing could be further from the truth.
what no one wants to talk about is that at this very moment, there are groups of racists who are sitting around tables devising plans to take obama out, considering it to be there patriotic duty.
somewhere in idaho or alabama or utah or texas or someplace this option is being seriously discussed. i've already read of at least two plots that have been exposed, though none has been reported as being too serious....right...
obama knows it. his wife knows it.
anyone who's looked at american history knows it.
colin powell, a career soldier, probably refused opportunities to run because he did not want to expose himself to that danger. (or at least, his wife did not want him to be exposed in that fashion.)
any time barack obama gets up in front of a large crowd, or wades into a rope line to shake hands or exposes himself to the general public, that act is a sign of incredible courage, and anyone who doesn't recognize that is just stupid or totally ignorant of this country's history.
tessa is right.
every vote counts, and the fact is that bill clinton still matters. if al gore had used clinton appropriately, he would have carried arkansas and florida would not have mattered.
i won't get into clinton's record, though i have always been mystified by the loyalty of black voters towards clinton.
he never really did that much for black folks, though he certainly treated them better, at least superfically, than reagan and bush had.
this is going to be a close race. every vote and every state is going to matter. clinton could make a difference, at the margins, in many, many states.
the fact that he is conducting himself in such a despicable fashion is going to hurt, though it is not a problem that cannot be hurdled.
I don't understand the hostility to Bill Clinton. He's the first two term Democratic president since FDR!!! He never lived up to his potential but he left the country in pretty good shape. Why do all of Obama's supporters need to hate on him? If he's such a bad, racist guy, I wonder why Obama wants anything to do with him??
Why do we care? He was a 2-term Democratic U.S. president. During his 2nd term, he changed treasury regulatory policy to make it easier for African-American and Latinos to get home loans. And not this nutty deregulation that was allowed to run amok in the 2000s, but sensible economic regulation that forced banks (instead of shady payday loan places) to consider making fixed rate loans to those below a certain income or who lived in certain zip codes. GW Bush, of course, deregulated treasury policy even further, but without the protections for those discriminated against by banks, allowing private entities to make loans for college and for homes that have led to mounds of personal debt for many low-income Americans. Clinton policies opened sensible bank loans to those who had been told by banks 'No." Bush opened pay day loan centers to those who were told by banks "No."
A lot of people have noted that Bill Clinton jumping up and down in fulsome praise of Obama won't convince swing voters. I'm one of those people. I like McCain, and I like Obama. They both have amazing life stories that suggest to me character (in very different ways). In fact, McCain reminds me a lot of Bob Dole, someone I respect quite a bit. But I didn't vote for him. In 1992, I voted for Bush, and then in 1996, I voted for Clinton. I liked that he said "Dole is an American hero, but we have honest differences." I was able to vote for Clinton, who had not served in the military, because I came to realize I agreed with his policies and he would be more likely than Dole to enact the policies I cared about.
This year, I respect McCain's heroic service in the military and I was leaning toward him most of the year--mostly because both McCain and Obama seemed like solid Americans, though I knew much more about McCain's heroism. I am now undecided after the economic events this week, as I am thinking that Obama probably will have the better policies and is closer to what I think the country needs now. This doesn't mean I hate McCain. It means I'm leaning toward Obama. Bill Clinton's message in this video is very close to what I'm thinking.
This is my first my comment and I had to post simply because today I had the exact same thought as I was driving to work listening to the radio and their discussion of Bill Clinton and his attitude towards Obama. It was at that moment while listening to disappoinment of people calling into the Bill Press show that I thought to myself "Who the F@#K cares what Bill Clinton does or thinks!" I am in complete agreement with your point the Obama campaign has come this far without him so F'em!(sorry for the lack of punctuation lol).