The Clinton Referendum

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 07:26:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

These two stories seem related to me. First, Obama claims to have more Clintonista support than Hillary:

In Iowa on Friday, Obama suggested he had the support of more Clinton administration figures than the former first lady. Lists provided by both campaigns quickly showed hers is almost twice as large. "Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?" Obama said. "They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century."

Clearly the Clinton mantle is still strong with Iowa Democrats and Obama is seeking to blunt it. Which makes this story even more interesting:

According to today's Washington Post, the Hillary campaign is planning to close out the Iowa and New Hampshire races with a "tight embrace" of her husband's legacy, an argument that only she is equipped to handle future foreign policy crises . . .

Makes sense to me. TPM Cafe notes:

Obama's counterargument has been that whatever the successes of the 1990s, it has also saddled Hillary with a kind of political baggage that will make her less effective as a President than his "new politics" will.

Clintonism without the Clinton baggage. It is an interesting development. I wonder if Edwards will try and flank it by rejecting Bill Clinton entirely.

< Edwards A Threat? Obama Attacks On 527s | Christmas Stories: "The Gift " (About a Drug Addict and His Dying Mother) and a Judge 's Gamble >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Clinton Referendum | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Gore (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by joejoejoe on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 07:53:01 PM EST

If this is a referendum on Clintonism then the Gore endorsement is going to be huge. Gore's got real cred on being against the Iraq War from the outset as opposed to say, Bill Clinton, and could level some devastating "contrasts" in any forward looking endorsement.

I would love to see Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MarkL on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:04:17 PM EST

and Hillary having a real debate about what direction this country should take.
Instead, we have Obama, whose message is that if we just have ethics reform, Congress will pass lots of SUPER legislation.

I don't see your point (none / 0) (#15)
by DaveFox on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:46:08 AM EST

All 3 candidates have specific policy proposals they are touting and debating. Everyone has slogans as well. If you're going to pile on Obama for "hope" and "change" and "ethics reform," it's not like Clinton's "experience counts" is any different.

They're all politicians and are behaving as such in a primary campaign. I fail to see any instance where Edwards and Hillary are out discussing the issues and Obama isn't.


: he's a spoiler (none / 0) (#19)
by eric on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:04:08 PM EST

The point is that Obama is the spoiler. Hillary and Edwards are viable candidates. Obama is not. Would Hillary get the nomination if Obama wan't in? Edwards would have a good chance, I think. AS it it, Obama is going to syphon off liberal idealists who wish and hope for Obama.

: It's HOW Obama proposes (none / 0) (#20)
by MarkL on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:26:49 PM EST

to enact his proposals which is the sticking point.
He wants to sit down with Republicans for lunch---but he'll BE lunch.

Any Bets (none / 0) (#1)
by BDB on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 07:50:02 PM EST

On whether we hear "A President can't vote present," in Clinton's speech?

A cute line but either false or a non sequitur (2.00 / 1) (#3)
by joejoejoe on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:03:45 PM EST

Gerald Ford was President and voted "present" as a Representitive when he was confirmed as VP. Of course a President can't vote 'yay', 'nay', or 'present' while acting as President. The President doesn't vote on legislation. But read literally, Gerald Ford voted 'present' and went on to be President so Sen. Clinton's line is just a clever non sequitur at best. Or a false statement.


Its a true statement since (none / 0) (#5)
by ding7777 on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:45:11 PM EST

Obama has voted 'present'.


A President can't vote, period. (none / 0) (#10)
by joejoejoe on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 09:12:41 PM EST

It's an executive position. There is no voting involved at all. What is a pocket veto other than the Presidential equivalent of "present"? It's rhetorical gibberish that Clinton is offering. It sounds profound but when you take it apart it has no meaning.

Sens. Joe Biden and John Edwards have both voted "present" by proxy on a judicial nomination. Why doesn't Sen. Clinton mention their record of voting "present"? Because it's not "present" votes that concern her -- it's Obama's standing in the polls.


: So? (none / 0) (#12)
by ding7777 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:56:28 AM EST

Hillary is forcing Obama to deny that he is a "fence sitter". Its called politics.
I really don't understand the fear in Obama's camp about having Obama defend his voting record.

Any bets whether BTD, having run out (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:47:13 PM EST

of Dem primary candidates, will finally "softly support" Hillary Clinton by Jan. 4?


Not likely (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:49:47 PM EST

There is too much in her Senate record and her equivocal stands on Iraq that preclude that.

Uncommitted is most likely.


: More info on Dem. Iowa caucus (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:55:04 PM EST

procedure. Not good.
NYT OP ED

: Another reason you should go (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:56:34 PM EST

sample the cuisine and weather in Des Moines.

i'll take that baggage for $100 alex! (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:56:57 AM EST

Clintonism without the Clinton baggage.

budget surpluses, lowest level of unemployment in 40 years, the country respected around the globe as the democracy to aspire to, the military getting more qualified recruits than it knew what to do with, a president actually capable of independent, original thoughts.

yeah, i could handle that kind of baggage. was the clinton adminstration perfect? not hardly. "the defense of marriage act" comes quickly to mind, among other things.

that said, i suspect most people would appreciate going back, to a time when being an american was not a constant roller-coaster ride, wondering what idiocy the administration would pursue next.

: I somewhat agree (none / 0) (#14)
by DaveFox on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:37:49 AM EST

Clinton's competence is light years ahead of what we've been experiencing lately. That said, the policy proposals of the major candidates are to the left of anything Clinton accomplished in his 2 terms. Whoever is elected, I think it is likely that the US government will be much more liberal and progressive in the next 4-8 years than it was under Clinton.

Clinton baggage (none / 0) (#13)
by koshembos on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:19:53 AM EST

Gore lost in 2000 because he ran against and not with Clinton. Baggage is the right wing attempted term used to tarnish Clinton's success. Thus Obama's potential attach of the baggage will be natural for the most right wing of the Democratic candidates.

Gore lost (none / 0) (#16)
by DA in LA on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:21:07 PM EST

Because he was wooden and unlikeable.

In our recent history, we usually pick the least likeable candidate because they have better policies. Then we lose in the general election.

Obama is the most likeable. Hillary is the least. The others fall somewhere in between.


: Likeable? (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 03:02:20 PM EST

Obviously you have never met Hilary. The cold polarizing Hillary stereotype that you tout is an invention of the GOP. That is unless you believe all women should act like nurturing mothers ready to nurse you at your slightest wimper.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton. But anyone who opposes her because she's polarizing is allowing the bottom feeders of modern movement conservativism to dictate who gets to run for president and who doesn't. If we want less polarizing politics, the answer isn't to oppose Hillary Clinton, who, outside the cartoon universe invented by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, holds almost relentlessly orthodox center-left opinions and expresses them in relentlessly garden-variety politician-speak. The answer is to send the right-wing rage machine back under the rock it crawled out from. Anything else is just caving in to bullies.
Kevin Drum via digby

: gore lost because (none / 0) (#18)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 04:41:03 PM EST

bozos like maureen dowd, frank rich, et al made up ludicrous lies about him, because they were pissed that bill clinton got a bj in the oval office.
"claims he invented the internet"
"claims the characters in "love story" were based on he and his wife"
"needs a feminist writer (naomi wolf) to help him bring out his alpha male, and dress right"
all nonsensicle claims, made by the aforementioned "liberal" columnists, not the republicans. the republicans just picked them up and ran with it. with these kinds of "liberals" supporting you, who needs enemies?
so spare me the equally nonsensicle claim that gore was wooden and unlikable. hogwash!