Another Unfounded Media Attack on Bill Clinton

Friday night, every cable news show I watched, mostly on MSNBC, took former President Bill Clinton to task for reverting to attacks on Barack Obama, much like he did before the South Carolina primary.

Now comes the Dallas Morning News, with just the opposite story.

Headline: "Bill Clinton avoids attacks on Obama in East Texas."

The story:

On a campaign swing through East Texas on Friday, Bill Clinton said over and over that he has nothing against Barack Obama.

"I'm not against anybody," he told an overflow crowd in the student center at Tyler Junior College. "I'm for Hillary." Later, he added: "If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice."

The former president, admitting that Texas looms as a make-or-break state for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential hopes, scrupulously avoided attacks on Mr. Obama – attacks of the type for which he was roundly criticized after the Jan. 26 South Carolina primary.

Go figure.


Update: More from Texas:

Henry Cisneros on why Hillary Clinton will make the best President.

Hillary's new ad in Texas, designed to speak to military voters.

< Late Night Election News | These Kinds Of Sexist Remarks Are Not What I Am Looking For >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here's Obama on Bill: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:58 AM EST
    The Obama campaign responded by calling the line a "false accusation", the kind "that failed his wife's campaign in South Carolina."

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:37:36 AM EST
    Like BTD, I have to ask: Can we get the media to promise to be this fiercely protective of Obama in the GE?

    Of course, we already have the answer: McCain has gone to town on Obama the last couple days, and the media has done nothing but report it.  Let the Clinton campaign attack him, though, and the furies of hell are released.

    McCain Is Just Warming Up (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:48:40 AM EST
    A little poke here. A little jab there. Setting up the beginning of a narrative before the big guns come out.

    The media won't abandon their first love after they have accomplished the task of helping Obama get the nomination.


    What does it say about me that I will have a (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:52:05 AM EST
    little bit of enjoyment watching that? I will vote for Obama and I hope he wins, but I want to see him get a taste of his own medicine.

    I hope I can vote for Obama (prefer Clinton) (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:10:19 AM EST
    Here's the problem though.  At this point I really don't know what else is waiting in the cobwebs about Obama.  There has been close to zero hard scrutiny of his past or positions.  Once the Republicans roll out that machine, then we'll see where Obama stands.  This is a major part of the problem by the way: the Republicans are going to get a chance to define him on the negatives because so far Obama has only had to address the positives. (with few exceptions)

    I want to see it too (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:35:10 AM EST
    because it may be the thing to finally wake Democrats up to (my favorite theme) the damage they have done to Democrats. It won't change until we understand this and fight back. Too bad so many people don't care if the media is unfair if it's not their guy getting trashed.

    What (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    it says about you is that you're going to vote for a candidate you know is is of a low calibre and yet, you would foist him on all of us as president.

    I already like watching McCain (none / 0) (#23)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    I'm a little worried though in that I don't mind listening to McCain speak but after about 3 minutes of Obama, I've got to turn him off.  I get exactly the same reaction to his and Bush's speeches.  Yuck.

    You have to admit Obama has a much (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:11:02 AM EST
    better vocabulary, ability to speak in complete, coherent sentences pronunciation, and timbre though.  I'll give him that.

    when he's giving a speech, yes (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:13:28 AM EST
    in interviews and debates, I find him halting and not fluid enough. But then, I'm used to trial lawyers. Gift of gab.

    Obama's oratory (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:07:45 AM EST
    I agree that he is a very good speaker when he is delivering a speech on "hope", "change", "whisper in Springfield" etc. and other geeral things. He does poorly in debates and issue specific discussions, because it  seems to me that he has  not taken time to read his own policy positions as prepared by his policy people. I am an economist and it is painful for  me to see how poorly he describes his own stimulus package or the health care  plan. Good in platitudes but very poor in specifics. On the other hand Senator Clinton seems very sure footed when she talks about policy and in particular when she talks about economic issues.

    She has a grasp (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:10:10 AM EST
    of public policy and manages to speak of complex issues without dumbing down. I think it would be great if she has a chance to teach people that these are complex and not feel good issues and that they need to confront the complexity.

    Gift of the Gab (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by koshembos on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:14 AM EST
    Sorry Jeralyn, Obama simply isn't very smart. After living in academia several decades my conclusion is simple: the bright people are very articulate even in give and take situations. Take Bill Clinton as an example: he is brilliant and therefore his give and take or impromptu responses are always sharp, clear and short.

    Sadly, Obama is closer to Bush than he is to Hillary.


    I am sorry but I disagree with you (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Writing as a visual thinker - or more accurately, a symbolic thinker - words do not come easily to me.  If I go directly from brain to mouth, depending on what subject I am addressing, it can sound like gibberish, or I can offend people because my raw verbal translation does not hit the mark.  

    People like me need a lot more time to verbalize and it has nothing to do with intelligence.  There are things that can be done to improve the translation process.  In my forties I took up racquetball and seemingly miraculously, it improved my ability to handle spontaneous situations.  Now a neurologist or similar professional would have to explain why that was true, I can only comment on the experience.

    This is not to say that Obama has this problem, merely that I disagree with your assessment.  I think the truth is closer to what I wrote in a comment to this sub-thread.  There is also arrogance which I perceive in Obama which, of course, speaks to emotional intelligence.


    Misdirected my comment (none / 0) (#67)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    Which tells me he hasn't done much (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:14:55 AM EST
    trial work.  But wouldn't a community organizer have to think on his feet too?

    You would think so (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    But I think the problem here is that Obama is selling hope, generalized hope, a concept that responds to each of our individual specific hopes, hopes that let you hear what you want to hear.

    It's easy to speak in soaring oratory when you don't have to be specific.  The problem is that in the debates he has to be specific and the conflict comes there - how to sound specific and yet not give away anything.

    There's a quote I saw in a comment to a dKos diary about Obama and his Social Security pandering.  He says that all options have to be on the table and then says - my paraphrase - I don't want to reveal what I really support.  That statement blew my mind.  If I were Hillary, I'd be quoting that statement in ads everywhere.


    When He Promotes Nuclear Energy, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:19:27 AM EST
    he will be able to pronounce it correctly.

    or the ability of (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:44:32 AM EST
    the nuclear companies to police themselves!

    much of it rings hollow to me (none / 0) (#32)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:15:56 AM EST
    He reminds me of MLK at times but then I remember... the accomplishments.  MLK earned that gravitas and respect for his lifetime of real, persistent struggle and action.

    At this point in his life Obama does a very good impersonation of the man, but he needs the resume to catch up to the rhetoric.

    Oh and about McCain.  Like the person above said, I find it easier to listen to him also.  Something about him I just trust eventhough I strongly disagree with his positions on many things.  He has a certain juvenile grin and real humility that strikes the right tone.


    I can't vote for McCain due to his (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:31:24 AM EST
    consistent position against Roe v. Wade and promise to appoint Scaia/Roberts clones to SCOTUS.  Just have to reach quick for the off button on my radio I guess.

    I feel exactly the same way (none / 0) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:12:58 AM EST
    Ralph, we are going to have to work on (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:14:57 AM EST
    our attitudes before November. I doubt Obama can come close in Texas and probably not here in Tennessee but this is just not like me. I usually love and defend every Democrat. I assumed the first attacks from McCain would put me in Obama's corner but not so far. Maybe it's just too early.

    I blame the media as much as Obama. He is playing politics as usual and the media is letting him get away with it like he is a new kind of perfect politician. I don't believe it at all.


    I didn't read the article, honest, but (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:17:40 AM EST
    did see a headline that young women fainting at Obama rallies might be plants.

    delicious links of the day (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:54:28 AM EST
    It's Not You, It's Me!

    Dear Barack:

    I know it's kind of lame to break up with you on Valentine's Day. And on the Internet to boot. But it's also kind of ironic. And that's what I need to tell you. As an ironic, contrarian, so-hip-it-hurts Gen X-er, I just can't love you anymore. I can't like you because ... because, well, everyone else does. And suddenly supporting you just seems soooo last week.

    Me, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and start working for the Dennis Kucinich 2012 campaign. Edgy, no? And if things start really truly going south for you, I want you to know that you can count on my future fleeting and conditional support in the months and years ahead. Yes, you can.  

    The fainting story is here.


    You mean like (none / 0) (#65)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST
    She's just not that into him. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    Teresa, The problem is that I don't really want (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    to work on my attitude.  As to the likeness of Obama to Bush, I watched W run for governor of Texas and he could put a complete sentence together then.  No errors in pronunciation, etc.  Don't know what became of that guy, but he sure is a dolt now.

    McCain is believable and genuine to me.  I think that's why his attacks don't push me to dislike him.  In a way, I like him more for it and that's opposite of the way I normally react.

    No doubt the media are the worst offenders but Obama's dismissive and condescending attitude is what I just cannot abide.  It drips off him when he's not giving a prepared speech.  Those speeches anger me as well.  Vacuous platitudes that push the right buttons and mean nothing.  Yuck.

    He's got a fundamentally dishonest commercial on the air in Austin where he says he's the one with a Universal Health Care plan, though that's clearly not true.  He also says in it that "We can't fix health care until we've fixed Washington".  Yes, we can't?  BS, we don't need him to fix health care, we just need insurance reform and some regulation.  Oh well, enough of a rant for now.


    You've got a point here (none / 0) (#13)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:48:09 AM EST
    but wait until the primaries are over and watch Obama get beat up when he opens his mouth about McCain.

    By the way, the Morning News is pretty straight and I imagine if there was much attacking going on, it would have been mentioned.  Since it wasn't, I can only assume that the cable news shows needed a story and gen'ed one up.  Can't say more because I don't watch them.


    did I miss the part (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    that quoted the actual "attack"?  Or did they just say he was attacking and did not give specific examples?

    Nation of Zombies (none / 0) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:04:30 AM EST
    Are we living in the Twilight Zone?

    It's starting to look that way when so many educated, reasonable people are falling for this Obama media spell despite very clear RED FLAG WARNING SIGNS all over the place.

    It has to be malicious intent on behalf of the DC beltway crowd because they can't be this stupid, can they?  Many of them Ivy League educated!  They must know what they're doing and the public is eating it up.  WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP.


    Do you watch Moyer's Journal? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:19:47 AM EST
    Susan Jacoby
    In an age of unreason you tend to get focus on very small personal facts as opposed to big issues. But even more than that, lack of knowledge and unreason affects the way candidates speak about everything. I mean, for example, obviously the healthcare situation in this country is very important. All of the candidates say it is. But if people don't know, for example, how is healthcare handled in other countries? How many people, for instance, do have the right to choose their own doctors in this country? In other words, without a base of knowledge of how things are you can't really have a reasonable talk about how things ought to be. In other words, you can say, "Oh, we don't want a program which will prevent people from choosing their own doctors." Well, are we able to choose our own doctors? I'm not. I have to choose within a managed care network.
    Brilliant segment, you can read the transcript or watch the video. Just ordered her book.

    It's people (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    seems to me that the last time everyone told Bill Clinton to shut up and stay out of the campaign, we got George W. Bush in the WH. Looks like we're headed that way again.

    YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! (none / 0) (#50)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:38:17 AM EST
    "They can't be this stupid can they?"??? They loved Bush and despised Gore and Clinton. OF COURSE THEY ARE THIS STUPID!! WAKE UP!!

    The answer to your question is YES. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:36:13 AM EST
    Thank you BernieO.  Took the words right out of my fingers to my keyboard.

    dipomatic (none / 0) (#73)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    Wait  til   McCain's  campaign   starts in on  Obama's  questionnaire  for  Illnois  Senate:

    1.  Against  capital  punishment?  Yes
    2.  Against  any  restrictions on abortion? Yes
    3.  Against  parental  notification  on underage
         abortions?  Yes
    1.  Against  driver's  licenses  for  illegal  aliens?    No
    2.  For  gun  control?   Yes
    3.  For  partial  privatization of  Social  Security?  Yes

    The  righwing  hate  machine  will  have  a  field  day.  

    It's ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:29:23 AM EST
    If you listen to Bill Clinton's entire speeches, you'll notice that he is positive for 95% of it, and always talks about how there is a great choice for Democrats this year, that the candidates are exciting.

    But as soon as he says one critical thing about Obama to highlight a difference between his wife and Obama, the press gets on his case.

    If Obama is the nominee, and Bill Clinton out of the picture, the press must find someone else to hate. I fear it won't be McCain.

    what's to figure? (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:09:35 AM EST
    if either clinton says anything, they must be attacked, it's in the contract.

    favorite quote...leave it to Texaz (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM EST
    He said he wasn't at all bothered by the notion of Mr. Clinton as first spouse, chief domestic adviser and "co-president" to the next chief executive. "He knows what he's doing," he said. "We were a heck of a lot better off when he was president than we have been for the last seven years. "With Hillary, you get a second partner. There's not a thing wrong with that."

    I think Hillary can do better than expected. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:23 AM EST
    In Texas, we're not afraid of strong women.  In fact we know they are a great asset.  Ann Richards didn't get elected Governor by swooning.

    Just added her military ad airing in TX (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:13:44 AM EST
    it's really good, watch it.

    Hey Jeralyn, Video Link for You (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:38:57 AM EST
    Just a quick off topic note, but please check out this video link I posted in the other thread.  It's the clip where Obama talks Clinton about Clinton periodically "feeling down"

    Here is the Youtube of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw

    What do you think of it?  Feel free to respond in the other thread.


    thanks so much (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:58:06 AM EST
    I just added it to the post about his comments. Very helpful and much appreciated.

    no problem (none / 0) (#22)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:07:34 AM EST
    you are great at running this website.

    wait... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:17:29 AM EST
    ... but she reached across the aisle?  Doesn't that mean she is a compromiser?  :)

    But you are right... it is a good ad.  


    Clever (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    but no, in this instance, it means she was successful in getting the other side to agree to her legislation. Which is not to say that sometimes she won't compromise. She will. They all do. No need to wear rose-colored glasses on that one.

    It's just that when you start off advertising that's what you'll do, and when that's your track record, you send a message to the other side that they can cut down your demands. At least, that's my view and why I want a fighter, rather than a capitulator as President. I just think she's tougher than Obama and more of a fighter.


    Again... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:25:09 AM EST
    ... I disagree with you.

    But I know that Hillary has talked about her ability to reach across the aisle numerous times in this campaign.  Her "unity schtick" isn't much different than Obama's.  

    But to stay on point... again, this is a good ad and should be effective.  MUCH better than the very cheesy "Hillary the guitar super star" ad.


    On this legislation (none / 0) (#8)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
    she brought them over to her side.  This 'unity schtick' is not the same as Obama's at all.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#16)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:53:05 AM EST
    When Obama compromises, we get legislation that allows lobbyists to have their normal lavish bribe parties as long as everyone stands up when they eat. Or nuclear power companies to think about notifying people when they have a leak. I think I prefer the way Hillary does it.

    Hillary supported (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:12 AM EST
    his compromise bill.  but you know i support Obama so at this sigh I'm an irrelevant woman hater.

    haha, sure :-) (none / 0) (#25)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:10:50 AM EST
    Ralph (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    is that because when she says she's reached across the aisle, she can actually point to concrete legislation that proves it?

    Other than the "don't sit down when you eat your caviar" ethics bill, which, to my understanding was by no means spearheaded by Obama alone, what bills prove that he can do this?


    Kathy (none / 0) (#74)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    Good  point!  Obama  didn't  write or  initiate  the  Ethics Bill.   He  jumped  on  to  co-sponsor  what  somebody  else  initiated,  and  then  advertised himself  as    being  the lead.
    Not  true at  all.  

    For  the life of  me, I  can't  find  ANY legislation  that was  originally  Obama's,  except  the  nuclear  energy  regs  that  got  gutted  by the  industry.  THAT  was  his ,  but  it  never  got passed.


    Really a very good ad (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:27:53 AM EST
    Texas is a very strong military state and there's a large presence.  Personally, I think she should run that commercial in Ohio and Pennsylvania as well.  

    Ralph (none / 0) (#76)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    Well  said.   We  may  be  against  the  war  in Texas,  but  we are  FOR  whatever it  takes  to support  these  veterans.  

    This  will work in  Texas.  Good   job, Hillary.


    The media hatred of Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:00:12 AM EST
    What's with the media hatred of Bill Clinton?

    You would think the guy got our country stuck in a horrible war, massive debt, let a city drown, sanctioned torture, and catered to corporate cronies....

    Is this all because of the Lewinsky thing?

    I just can't believe it.  Bill Clinton has great favorability ratings among Democrats and it must drive them batty that they just can't bring him down.

    They are trying to bully Hillary into hiding Bill away so he won't have a positive effect on the voters.  For all the whining about Clinton on the campaign trail, he did help Hillary in New Hampshire.  (though she deserves most of the credit)  And in South Carolina, they made it seem like he was responsible for that blowout because of race baiting, but let's face it:  Obama was going to win that state anyway.

    Here's a phot of Soros at Obama Fundraiser (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:17:20 AM EST
    It's pretty funny . It's from April 9, 2007, in Chicago, at a fundraiser at a private home. It was published in NY Magazine on April 16, 2007. Soros is on the right side of the stairs.

    caption: The Ascension (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:28:05 AM EST
    looks like he's floating...

    Uh oh, the messiah talk is getting to me.


    Query: (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:34:29 AM EST
    Is Rezko in the photo?

    Soros has had fundraisers for Obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:12:15 AM EST
    He is a billionaire and has many powerful friends.  O'Reilly has hated him for a very long time and often links him to Media Matters as well.

    I love that website, by the way.


    no clue (none / 0) (#40)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:30:09 AM EST
    But do you really think Hillary will survive this media onslaught?  Soros and the rest seem to have made a very sure bet on a table where the dealer is on the take and the deck is rigged.

    Heh, the good ol' media again. (none / 0) (#47)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:19:37 AM EST
    Sorry if you guys have already seen this article, but I found it interesting re: the biased media coverage.

    of course (none / 0) (#48)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:54:30 AM EST
    the media only has the best interests of the country in mind when they manufacture the "news", no?

    I attended one of President Clinton's talks (none / 0) (#53)
    by BeBe on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:37:38 AM EST
    yesterday. He did not utter the word Obama nor refer to him in anyway. He talked for a straight 60 minutes about health insurance, NCLB, mortgage crisis, unemployment, and finally Iraq. It was a the talk of a complete wonk.

    The really striking thing was out of 500 people, 6 were AA. Probably 60 or so were latino as far as I could tell. 6 out of 500 in east Texas shows how polarized the community is in this primary. In the past 30% to 50% AA attendees to see a Democratic president would have been the norm. This is devastating to the local party who have worked for 30 years to unite everyone. To not even show the common courtesy to show up to listen to him is beyond bad and some local party members were furious because whites would go to see Sen Obama if given the opportunity just to hear him. We were expecting 750 to 1000 to attend so we were disappointed in turnout.

    I can always count on this place (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    to have the most unique pro-Clinton spin.  FTR, here is the comment that Clinton is getting taken to task for...

    "There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that `No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

    Personally I think it speaks of an arrogance on the part of Bill Clinton more than an insult of Barack Obama.   I think he has so lost himself in his own legacy that he can't accept that other people may have had a positive impact on society other than his White House.

    first off (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    all this "legacy" crap is a bunch of hooey.  What do you think any president's "legacy" was like after they left office?  Would you have thought 20 years after we finally got rid of Reagan that they would fly his corpse around the country and hold sixteen thousand televised funerals for him?  Carter was reviled as a weakling when he left office, but now he's one of the most vaunted ex-presidents of our time.  A legacy is defined by history, not by the immediate.

    Second off: what Clinton is saying is right, and Obama painted himself into this corner by saying that he was not part of the sixties movements.  This was during the Nevada Reagan fiasco.  Why is it okay when Obama says he's not invested in the causes of the sixties, but X number of weeks later when Bill Clinton repeats it, he's the bad guy?

    Obama rules are at it again.


    A few points (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    First off I am not judging the Clinton legacy in any way.  However you are denying reality if you don't see that Bill Clinton is defending his legacy as part of the campaign.  Whenever Obama makes any reference to the Clinton Presidency, Bill shoots back a comment about how great his Presidency was.  

    Secondly Jimmy Carter is not vaunted.  He has been vindicated on some points but, overall, his was not a great Presidency.

    Lastly, what do the 60s have to do with this discussion?  Barack Obama was born in 1960.  Of course he wasn't involved in 1960s activism.   Regardless what does that have to do with Clinton's comment about the 90s?


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    "Whenever Obama makes any reference to the Clinton Presidency, Bill shoots back a comment about how great his Presidency was."

    That's because every time Obama mentions the Clinton years, he trashes them/devalues them.  Now Clinton's not allowed to defend himself/his Presidency?


    Your comment (none / 0) (#71)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST

    about the 60's displays how little you know about what Barack Obama has said.

    Here is one article explaining a little bit about the whole 60's thing.  It doesn't focuse directly on Obama's comments, but it's a start.

    Here is another article that is two years old and very telling, considering that it's pre-campaign.  What I find most amusing (and sad, really) is this comment hereb (note my emphasis):

    Obama is on a book tour and on a campaign tour for the Democratic congressional candidates and here are some of the things he said on the show. I'm interested in hearing your reactions. Number one, he says Americans are not an ideological people, that we're mostly pragmatic. Basically, where the country is at right now, he asserts, is that you've got to move beyond ideology and you've got to address real problems in real time in real ways. He argues that it's time to get beyond the ways in which issues were defined by the 1960s. He said `We don't want to re-litigate the 60s,' that many issues that were popular, that the interests and interest groups that were defined in the 60s have run out of steam and that we've got to move beyond them.



    okayyyy (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    What does that have to do with Bill Clinton's comment about the 1990s?

    If you want to relive the 1960s, be my guest.  I was born in 1968 so I don't really care about the 1960s anymore than I care about the 1950s or 1860s.  They are historical eras before my time.


    oh, I see (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    the only history that matters is the one that I actually lived through.  Yes, that makes perfect sense.

    flyerhawk, perhaps you could point out (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    exactly what part of Bill Clinton's statement is not the gospel truth?  What part did Obama play in either the good parts of the '90s or stopping some of the bad things that the republican congress tried to do then?  The government shutdown comes to mind.

    Since when did speaking the truth become an attack?  It never was before Obama came along.


    but what is so new about (none / 0) (#63)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    Obama's message?  And I don't mean to minimize his appeal or success.  But "hope," yeah I remember JJ's "Keep Hope Alive" from 20+ years ago, back in 2000 Bush was the "uniter," and EVERY politician says that somehow they are different from the typical Washington pols.  

    Every election race against an incumbent (or his Party) is about change, but somehow it's like BO was the first one to every bring up this concept.

    And yes, he's a fine orator, but I think people should actually watch some of MLK's speeches before we make the comparison--MLK was far superior.  

    College kids (none / 0) (#75)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:14:42 AM EST
    Don't  assume  Obama is  winning  all the college  kids  or  "young  vote" (20-30's).  
    Clinton  won  them  by  landslide  in California  and  Massachusetts.

    actually, (none / 0) (#64)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    BC went on to say that this is why such great candidates as Biden and Dodd received little attention--that somehow experience is a bad thing.