home

The Trouble With Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
I have knocked Josh Marshall around more than a bit of late, I thought with reason, but we all like and respect Josh and can not say enough about the good things he has done for the progressive blogosphere. That is why it gives me great pleasure to highly recommend his most recent post about his qualms about what Bill Clinton has been doing in this campaign. I have some disagreement with his analysis but it is worthy of thoughtful engagement. A very good and interesting post.

< New Format for Live-Blogging South Carolina Results | The Media's Clinton Derangement Syndrome >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Trouble With Bill | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    by Josh's logic (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    Bill couldnt support Gore, if he were running, over Obama either.

    His arguments against Bill in team with Hillary seem very weak to me.

    Big difference between support (none / 0) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    and being an attack dog.

    Parent
    And why shouldn't Bill be allowed (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    to do whatever he wants?

    Parent
    Not saying he can't (none / 0) (#50)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    All he does, in the end, is soil his standing amongst some Dems.

    Parent
    The "trouble" with Bill (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Angel on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    First off is the presumption that there is "trouble" with Bill.  I happen to disagree.  He is openly supporting his wife, just as any spouse would do.  Because he has such stature in the party should not outweigh his personal obligation and apparent strong desire to do everything he can to help get Hillary elected.  He did not ask the party to give him a position; he earned his place based on his accomplishments.  And I for one do not want him to be silenced becuase the Obama camp is pissed off that he is willing to take on anyone who goes after Hillary.  

    ditto! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Dude (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    It is just a title.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    What do you think of Joss Whedon?

    Ok, scratch that, too pop culture probably for this wine drinking track of a crowd . . . .

    Parent

    BTD, I'm a beer drinker and I don't (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    have a clue who you are talking about.

    Parent
    Must be imported beer . . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST


    Parent
    wrong demographic (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    you are describing the typical Obama supporter.

    Parent
    No. Mich Ultra. I'm a cheap drunk. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:06:19 PM EST
    I have to take a shower and then I'm going to look and see who that dude is.

    Parent
    How is Medalla Light? (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    Don't think I've ever seen it up here.

    Parent
    Currently (none / 0) (#47)
    by rilkefan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EST
    rewatching Buffy season 7, Angel season 4.  Brilliant writer of dialogue and scenes, able to evoke a wide range of deep emotions on occasion, not so good on high-level organization, kinda rough on actors; worth owning his entire oeuvre.

    Parent
    Joss is teh boss (none / 0) (#56)
    by msobel on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    BTVS is the best thing ever done, No OMG Firefly is the best thing ever done.  

    Anyhow he is great.

    Anya line comes in very handy these days: "I tried being patient, it took too long."

    Parent

    IF he is beginning to overshadow (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    Hillary, it is due to the media. They are making him bigger in this picture than the role he is really playing. It's a unique situation for sure. The media covers him because he is an ex-President but at the same time, he is entitled to campaign for his wife.

    The thing to me is, what the heck has he said about Obama that is so bad? Is any of it any worse than typical spouse campaigning?  I truly don't get it. If he wasn't an ex-President, would anything he has said be unusual?

    That's my question. Is what he has said over the line really or only because of his former position?

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    I agree.  Bill could sit in the lounge chair and the press could be at his house and ask him a question and it would make the news.  

    Parent
    don't buy it (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cdo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    Obviously his opinion would be different if he wasn't an Obama supporter, and I think part of him recognizes this.
    To put it in baseball terms, just because the Yankees have the money to stack their roster with the best players, doesn't mean they are cheating by doing it.
    Hillary's husband is a former president. A very popular former president. His campaigning for her is her good fortune, she isn't taking anything away from other candidates or corrupting the process.
    If Obama wants to play against a big league team, great, but don't whine she brings out her heavy hitter.
    I disagree with the notion that former presidents join the ranks of some kind of seraphim who must park their butts on a cloud and stay out of the course of human events for the rest of their natural lives.

    I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST


    Parent
    me too! (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST


    Parent
    ME THREE :-) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:46:37 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not like he didn't know he would (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    be running against HC and that she happens to be married to Bill. It seems a little late to cry foul now. Maybe he didn't think Bill would campaign but I knew he would.

    Parent
    I don't think Josh Marshall is an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#52)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:39:16 PM EST
    cf. this quote from the same post:
    Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy. Transcendence isn't usually a big sell for me in politics. And I continue to have my doubts about whether Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the avalanche the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall.


    Parent
    i don't like clinton bashing. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by hellothere on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    personally i like a feisty bill clinton. hell, we sure haven't seen it from the rest of the whining democratic establishment.

    indeed (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    and I think he will do it if HRC is not the nominee - if the nominee wants him too.

    Parent
    from Left Coast (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    "Senator from Punjab? Axelrod on Bhutto? Jesse Jackson, Jr. on Hillary Clinton's tears, and Katrina? Of course, Hillary usually apologizes when her surrogates go off the rails. Obama?"

    Yeah, when are all you Hillary haters gonna hold Obama to the same standards.....Inquiring minds want to know....

    The problem is not Bill's---it's the party's (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    It's not Bill Clinton's fault that no stronger leader has shown up since he left office.
    The Democrats have been floundering ever since Bush was elected, with almost none of those in Congress willing to take strong stands and stick to them.
    I really don't understand Josh's complaint.
    It doesn't seem fair to me...
    I can't quite put my finger on why, just as he can't really finger why Bill C's involvement bothers him.

    Of course he neglects to mention that Obama's camp has been trying to slime Bill C since AT LEAST last June. It was not Bill that picked this fight.

    the GOP will fight to win (4.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    down to the last drop of our blood and you dont want HRC to win if Bill helps her?  Goofy logic if ya ask me.  And you didnt. :-)

    My issue with Bill (3.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    doing what he's doing is the "dynastic" part that Josh mentions.  There seems to be something fundamentally un-American about having our country run by two families for decades.  Prescott Bush in '16?  Chelsea in '24?  When does it stop?

    This shouldn't disqualify Hillary from running, but it seems to me that if Bill put his party and his country ahead of his legacy he'd at least keep his involvement to making the case for Hillary - as opposed to attacking Obama.  

    Moreover, let's just say for a moment that Obama were to win - the former president is on record attacking him.  This is of course no help to the Party.

    attacking Hillary by Obama is the same argument (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM EST
    Obama has been alluding to her moral character for ages now...When does that stop...I think if its good enough for the goose, it should be good enough for the gander...Obama doesnt seem able to take a punch...He delivered his punch line about Hillary and walmart and then whined when she came back with her Rezko line....You punch and you will be punched back...that is the way it works....as far as dynasty is concerned, that is just a silly and foolish GOP tag line....

    Parent
    well.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    I guess I don't think it's as big of a deal when the contenders attack.  Neither of their attacks will carry the same weight in October of '08 that Bill's will.  I have rarely complained or cared when Hillary attacks Obama because that's expected.  

    The dynasty piece isn't silly or foolish.  I'm 31.  Bush was elected when I was 12.  If Hillary wins there is a good chance 2 families will have run the country from the time I was 12 to 40.  It's not silly for me to think about and care about.  You may disagree - but please explain why you are not concerned about this as opposed to telling me I'm a fool.  Also, I haven't heard this from the GOP much since GWB benefited from this.  

    Parent

    It's not a dynasty (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:48:18 PM EST
    please explain why you are not concerned about this

    Hillary is related to Bill by marriage, not blood. Her name would still be Rodham if the citizens of Arkansas weren't uncomfortable with it back in the 80s. I had to take my exhusband's name then too, against my will. The hassle of retaining my maiden name was unbelievable.

    Also, she's not Bill. However much they may agree on certain issues, I think she's not only smarter, more disciplined, tougher, more honest, more independent, but also more liberal than Bill.

    Further, they neither one come from powerful political families, unlike the Bushes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family

    There is no entry for "Clinton dynasty." There are no Clintons (or Rodhams) who are senators, governors, or vice presidents.

    Finally, I don't think the first Clinton presidency got a chance to achieve as much as it could have, thanks entirely to the unrelenting opposition of their enemies. If it takes another Clinton to "change the trajectory," that's fine with me.

    Parent

    Thanks echinopsia (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    It is nice that you took the time to make the obvious clear. Nicely done, not that it will help those who irrationally hate Clinton. If it isn't dynasty it is going to be something else, like racism, warmongers, republican lite, corporate drones, polarizers... etc.

    Parent
    Not concerned (none / 0) (#44)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    because I lived thru the Clinton years as an adult and realize they did a good job overall and the econony soared...

    Parent
    Obama forced WJC to defend his Presidency (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:35:30 PM EST
    when Obama said the past 10 - 15 years, blah, blah blah.  Whatever Obama meant to say (and he had many opportunties to correct the impression) it was not an endorsement of Clinton's Presidency.

    Parent
    Excellent point -- it was a red flag (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    in their faces for the Clintons, and for a lot of us.  But I'm still more ticked about the "excesses of the '60s and '70s" and Obama not being "invested" in them.  A lot of us knocked ourselves out then to invest in a future, the present from which he benefits now.

    So I'm just not feeling like investing in him again.

    Parent

    while I disagree (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:06:47 PM EST
    with some of his arguments, because I happen to love Bill Clinton, I also think he is starting to see Hillary as a viable alternative to Obama....good for him....However, as a woman myself, I must also state, that thinking Bill or anyone else, could take over Hillary, is out of their minds...That is one of the strongest women I know of....He is weak in her shadow....and I like that about her....

    I think he loses track (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    as soon as he actually tries to justify his belief that Bill needs to stay out of the process. Josh apparently starts from the premise that Bill owes the Democratic party something. I just don't see it. I don't believe in double standards, and Josh has one for Bill Clinton.

    I hate to say it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    casue I like Josh - but I think this is a case of
    disappointment that Bill chose a different candidate than Josh has. I think he thinks Bill is being unfair..that he shhould be above it all.

    Bill is too young and has too much going on upstairs to ever sit it out in a lounge chair in the yard.  Just aint him.  Plus, if Hillary werent running I dont think Josh would mind Bill supporting one over the other.  

    Maybe I am wrong - but that is how I read it.

    Parent

    He brings up the dynasty canard (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    which, frankly, is just stupid. He's a professional historian, and he knows what is and is not a dynasty.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    but it gets him page hits for the advertisers.
    I sure hope that isnt what this cr*p is about.

    Parent
    So what "is not" a dynasty (none / 0) (#40)
    by sphealey on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    Two families trading the White House back and forth for 6 (possibly 7) terms isn't dynastic in nature?  What is the definition of dynasty then?  Are you OK with Jeb Bush taking office in 2017?  Chelsea in 2025?

    sPh

    Parent

    simply lost in your predicate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by white n az on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    is the notion that Obama IS the better candidate AND that he offers more to America.

    Sure, it would be preferable to have new blood in the White House but not above all other considerations.

    I am unconvinced of the superiority of Obama's vague platitudes and convinced that he is a typical politician ducking important votes, associating with sleazy people and selling vague notions of hope.

    If you look back at last Tuesday nights debate, the impassioned declarative by Hillary that no one is to go without health insurance in this country carried the day and was far more effective than anything said by anyone else - and I am an Edwards supporter.

    Parent

    Your response (none / 0) (#46)
    by sphealey on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    did not address my point.  

    If dynasties are a concern, then it might be necessary to accept a less good (if only slightly in this case) candidate to avoid the greater danger.  Which is significant IMHO because while I don't get the impression that Chelsea actually intends to go into politics there are several Bushes waiting their chance.

    In any case I am not an Obama supporter.

    sPh

    Parent

    exactly (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    and the next Bush will be George Prescott Bush.  He's 32 - good looking, his mother is Mexican and he resides in Florida.  He's the poster child and has the pedigree for a politician.  And he just joined the reserves.  Dynasty.

    Parent
    there is one paragraph from Josh that hits it (none / 0) (#10)
    by teacherken on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:31:40 PM EST
    for two of my students who are strong Clinton supporters, one a White male, the other an African-American female (who will be voting - he's too young):

    But before I finish there's another part of this that is I think even more important. With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years.

    Independently they told me yesterday they wish he would shut his mouth, that Bill is damaging and diminishing her.

    FWIW

    Peace.

    did you ask them (3.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    what teevee show they heard that from?

    Parent
    It's very Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM EST


    Parent
    scratch a meme (none / 0) (#18)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    see a pundit.

    Parent
    teacherken, I read your diary today and I (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    have a question because it surprised me. You seem to believe that the Clintons have really over-stepped a line in this campaign. Can you explain to me how? I agree that some supporters have crossed the line but so have some of Obama's.

    Parent
    Bill's bully pulpit (none / 0) (#15)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    Josh Marshal writes' "Bill Clinton holds a de facto office within the Democratic party. And what he's been doing amounts to an abuse of office. He has come into a primary process between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and used his unique power to jam his thumb down on one side of the scale in a way that I think is very difficult for anyone to overcome."

    Actually, it's not "de facto" as Bill Clinton is a super-delegate. Clearly his office is "de jure" within the Democratic Party.

    Obama speech last night (none / 0) (#30)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    Barack Obama last night (as quoted by the CNN website):

    "After we won Iowa, everybody was so excited," Obama told supporters at a rally Friday night. "Everybody said, 'Oh, look at this. You know, African-American, he's winning in a state with almost no African-Americans,' and everybody's excited, and young people came out.

    "And I think people started thinking, 'Well, you know, this isn't hard.' But you know what? The status quo does not give up that easily," he added."

    Is that not playing the race card? Is that not essentially telling AA voters in SC: Vote for me, it is possible for a black to win. Look at Iowa, where all the whites voted for me.

    And logically, in the context of his message, when he says the "status quo" does not give up easily, it sounds like he's saying the whites don't give up easily.

    And yet, when Bill questions the difference between Obama's words and deeds (on Iraq) or Hillary fires the Rezko salvo in response to Obama's Wal-Mart dig, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift calls them "cheap shots".

    Tell me the difference please...

    no difference (none / 0) (#43)
    by white n az on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    Check out this link to John Ridley's comments on HuffPo

    Also, I remember Gene Robinson saying in a very eloquent way...this primary features the first female and the first African American to seriously vie for the presidency...did we really expect that these issues were not going to be confronted?

    Parent

    What about Michelle's comment about Iowa - (none / 0) (#45)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    Harvard law school graduate and Princeton undergrad alum Michell Obama: "Ain't no black people in Iowa!"

    Parent
    michelle in my opinion plays a (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:40:16 PM EST
    subtle race card and yet no one calls her on it. why is that?

    Parent
    The Trouble With Bill | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment