home

Praise Bill Clinton, Do Not Bury Him

Digby wrote this a few days ago:

Whatever happens, Bill Clinton will still be the 42nd president of the United States and the first two term Democrat since Roosevelt. That's never going to change. Democrats should ask themselves, once the smoke has cleared, if it's really a good idea to discredit his accomplishments. However you personally may feel about him, there is value in a popular ex-president remaining popular. Political value. (See: Reagan legacy project.) The question is what they are valued for.

I see the Clintons as warrior chiefs against the hardcore conservative movement machine that nearly crippled this country (but which may have just run its course after drifting into decadence and hubris.) But, at the time of the movement's greatest power and influence, no one took more crap or was more deft at beating them back. I, for one, am grateful to both of them for taking a nearly unbelievable amount of heat from both the media and the Republicans during that era --- and surviving.

More . . .

Bill Clinton is in the pantheon of popular ex-presidents who continues to do important work on global initiatives. Hillary Clinton is a Senator and historic breakthrough presidential candidate who won more primary votes than any candidate in history aside from Barack Obama. Al Gore is a global leader and Nobel prize winner. On the other side of that epic battle, Newt Gingrich is a Fox News commentator, writing reviews of mystery thrillers on Amazon. Tom Delay is a private citizen facing indictment. Half of the social conservatives who unctuously criticized Clinton's behavior have been run out of town on morals charges. Fox News is sinking in the ratings faster than George W. Bush.

The Clintons didn't single handedly defeat the conservatives, but they fought them off valiantly when the movement was at its pinnacle and they deserve some credit for that. It's hard to believe that we could have been worse off if they hadn't, but believe me, we would have.

What Digby Said. Any chance any other A-Lister will write something like this? Do not hold your breath.

Comments closed

< Sexism: Are We Really Talking About It? | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A disgrace that it needs to be said at all. (5.00 / 22) (#2)
    by Lysis on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    People ask why there is such a backlash against Obama among us Clinton fans when we have more "in common" with him than "the real enemy."  For me, a stab in the back from your own side cuts deeper than a full frontal assault from the other side.

    And some (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    of us realize that Obama represents very little of the Democratic Party tradition.  And that is NOT a good thing.

    Trashing Bill Clinton is one of many Obama follies that the party will pay for dearly.

    The fact is that Bill Clinton was in office at the time that the last of the old Dixiecrats were retiring and while the Conservative movement was still in ascendance and when the media establishment became more concentrated and virtually merged with the Village. Anyone who claims disappointment with his administration's record is ignoring the circumstances of the times.

    I can't say I'm surprised at any of this.  The party establishment saw its chance to gain the upper hand and they took it, to the ultimate detriment of the whole party.

    Giving Conservatives a break is a massive blunder that, given the ineptitude of the party establishment, is a tragedy that disserves the nation.

    [ Parent ]

    Digby continues to be (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    a voice of refreshing sanity.

    The time to take this advice was several months ago, however. As BTD says, I'm not holding my breath.

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Redshoes on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Digby gets it. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    As usual.
    We should get her a TV show. :)

    Please don't (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    even suggest that. Look what happened to Rachel Maddow once she started appearing on television. Maybe cameras suck I.Q. from people like some alien brain sucking critter on the Sci-Fi channel.

    I remember listening to Air America when they actually said "good" things about the Clintons and loved them some "Big Dawg".

    [ Parent ]

    This post (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    would be better served at all the pro-Obama blogs and websites.  This is preaching to the choir at Talk Left (thank YOU Jeralyn)!  

    This is why Obama and the New Dems have lost me this election cycle, and sadly, many others.  One just has to see the flourishing of all the blogs and sites that are populated with upset Democrats/progressives who were Clinton sympathizers who feel betrayed by Obama's campaign approach and his operatives.

    They blew up the bridge.  It is theirs to repair.

    That says it all... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    I love the Clintons...Bill an Hilary.  Bil Clinton will go down in history as an American hero.    Bill and Hillary's intelligence and diligence are remarkable.    In the face of adversity, they go on...they stand.

    As Maya Angelou wrote about Hillary (and also applie to Bill)..

    "You may write me down in history
        With your bitter, twisted lies,
    You may tread me in the very dirt
        But still, like dust, I'll rise"


    Loved the "big dawg" (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Fredster on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    He is scary smart and loved the politics of it all.

    As a Fed employee I was affected by the gov't shutdown, but I loved it when Bill was able to trump Newt on that thing.  

    We had a chance at the best but we're stuck with the rest...sigh.

    For the first time in God knows how long, will probably not be voting Dem in November.  Not sure about down ticket though.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Oh and yes... (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Fredster on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    I benefitted from FEMLA also when my dad was dying and after, helping to take care of my mom.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought he was a great president.  Mistakes, sure.  But he did a lot of good too - Personally, I benefited from the FMLA.  Allowed me care for my mom before she passed away.  
    I think Bill and Hill have spines of steel and hearts of gold.  That said, I have opted to reregister as Independent based on the BS of the DNC.  I'm waiting to see how Obama does between now and November - and a lot of that will depend on how much he includes Hillary and her policies (UHC)

    JUNE 10 (4.00 / 4) (#21)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:41:51 PM EST
    Register as Independent on JUNE 10, INDEPENDENCE DAY.  It's a protest movement for the way the DNC and Obama treated Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Darn, I didn't get the memo - (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    I've already mailed my change in to the State of Cali.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a copy? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    Send it to the DNC on June 10.  That's what I'm doing.  Or if you don't have a copy, send Howard a nice note.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent - thanks for the advice - will do!! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Val, do you have a link (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:14:34 PM EST
    with info on this Independence Day thang?  I asked chopper in an earlier thread, but chopper just heard about it somewhere unknown, too.  I've googled with no luck.

    I've got some more fund appeals from Dems, state and national and local, and was going to just toss 'em again -- I told them all to take me off their lists, already -- but would like to take part in this for larger impact.  So I'm wondering about the timing -- send then? send sooner to arrive then? -- and any wording of a reply or whatever that would signal the size of what I hope is a movement on this.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    that was a great post (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Turkana on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    digby has been one of the few to retain sanity, this past six months.

    What Digby said. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    Again.

    Digby is one of the best reasons for having an internet, let alone these blog thingies.

    So much of this is generational (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jim J on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    Many Obama supporters have deeply internalized the elitist anti-Clinton propaganda in the media since the '90s. They grew up with it, it was their milieu, and it's in their collective DNA now.

    Doesn't make it right, but that's a partial explanation.

    This more than anything else (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    makes me disregard much of what Obama supporters say.  I automatically turn off when anyone spouts one of those '90s conservative buzzwords.  Very telling.  Very ignorant.

    [ Parent ]
    I totally agree with this... (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    and that's why it's so annoying when they lecture me about the eeeevils of the Clinton years.

    I'm thinking, "Hello? I remember REAGAN. Don't talk to me about Bill Clinton, mmmmmkay?"

    I must admit I am tempted to add words like "whippersnapper" when I respond. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Some evils (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    I really like to say this because it makes so many people's heads explode.

    The Clinton Administration was one of the cleanest in our history.  Not one appointed official indicted for activity connected with their public responsibilities.

    Try saying that for the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy-Johnson, Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush and Bush II administrations.

    But gee what about all those pseudo-scandals? The answer is in the word pseudo.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ap in avl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    pseudo-scandals.

    Look at the real world changing scandals of the past 8 years.

    Then look at the Clinton years.  Travelgate? MonicaGate?  For god's sake, the Clinton's had their own special prosecutor assigned to them just waiting to destroy them.  

    There's no comparison.  But yet the DNC decided to demonize THEM?  Oh yeah, it's just politics....right.  I guess we're supposed to forget about it.

    Change. Hope. Heh....

    [ Parent ]

    It also didn't help (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    When Obama went on the interview and criticized the Clinton admin while praising the wonders of Reagan. Talk about selctive memory! I still laugh whenever the mention Reagan Inter. Airport after he busted them all!

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's overstated (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    Most people my age grew up laughing at the pompous hypocrites on Capitol Hill who attacked Bill Clinton for you know what. Indeed, I think that has a lot to do with why so many of us are Democrats today.

    There's still something to what you say, though. When the media couldn't make people hate Bill Clinton, they turned him into a kind of evil magician (and Hillary and Al Gore). Obama was able to run against that false image this year.

    [ Parent ]

    Andgarden, my daughter is about your age... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    ....she was a young teen during Monica Lewinsky stuff and I remember her thinking what total BS it was. Today she tells me that she doesn't respect Hillary Clinton because she didn't leave Bill over Monica. And mind you, she hasn't become a Christian or anything and she has had boyfriends who cheated on her whom she did not leave so what to make of it, other than she is just repeating things that she's heard over and over again.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    I've actually heard that from older women (the ones who didn't support Hillary).

    [ Parent ]
    I know, I was a bit shocked.... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    ...when she said that. But basicallly she doesn't hate the Clintons and she despises sexism. But she's in a bit of denaial about anything bad regarding Obama campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    I have a hard time understanding (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    the she-didn't-leave-him thing as anything but an excuse, as opposed to a reason, to be against Hillary.

    Of all the reasons not to like her, it's just the weirdest one to me.  Felt the same way when everyone was flipping out about Spitzer's wife.

    People have all sorts of reasons for what they do in their marriages.  Who cares?


    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    "MYOB" has always been my favorite acronym. I've always heartily detested gossip, and that's exactly what I consider such prurient hearsay discussion about someone's personal life to be. Trafficking in gossip is a cowardly practice that's injurious and unjust, and that's why Todd Putnam's just-published Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton is so contemptible.

    [ Parent ]
    Look, I'm 27.. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    and I was and still am a fan of Clinton.  I had disagreements of course.
    We had the best economy since the mid sixties.
    We had peace too.  We had a strong international standing, and low inflation to boot.

    I am one of the last of the "Gen X, Nomads" as they are called.  I am right on the border of these millenials, who like most young people have no clue of history. However, I do have a great understanding of history.  I recall the right wing as well as many Dems who did not like Bill, pile on him 24/7. Still, he prevailed.  That pondscum Obama, took advantage of the right wing stereotypes of the Clintons and ran against it.
    Party "unity" indeed.  

    P.U.M.A 08'!

    [ Parent ]

    I laugh - when you think "family (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    values" the fact that HRC stayed with WJC was to her credit.  She had/has a wonderful daughter and they worked it through.

    I also laugh because my husband and I have a similar relationship to Bill/Hill - no infidelity (thank heavens), but we're a team, best friends, confidentes, lovers, advice givers and supporters.  So much more than "just sex".  We believe in working through things, not cutting and running.

    I think that's good!

    [ Parent ]

    I hear this a lot from women. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by cloudy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    Even MO made the off-hand "I can control my man" comment.  I don't think it's an excuse, but projection. I find that most of the women who make the "she stayed with him" argument have been cheated on in the past, felt diminished by it, and are still struggling with those feelings.  In expressing disgust and lack of respect for Hillary they say a lot more about how they feel about themselves than her. Sometimes it's easier to take those feelings out on someone else than to work through them yourself.

    I mean no disrespect to your daughter by saying this, just my observation.


    [ Parent ]

    If true... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    if so much of it is generational, then we are witnessing the failure of a liberal arts education in the modern age.

    Just another nail in the coffin...

    [ Parent ]

    generational? it didn't have to be. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    who played on the fears and biases? huh? hint, it wasn't mccain or clinton. now i am sure we'll hear about old men who need to get out of the way soon. good luck with that.

    [ Parent ]
    David Neiwert has a good post on that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's really odd how this... (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    primary has turned out. What I thought I believed is not what I believe anymore. Now Obama's move to totally discredit all things Clinton, is actually dividing the party, permanently, it seems to me. So Obama's supposedly new coalition, instead of expanding upon the Clinton success on expanding the party, is now narrowing it.


    I'll bet the original game plan... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    ...was to emphasize the Hillary Hate to woo indies and Republicans, particularly in the caucus/red states, and to extend it to the Clinton-loving AA community by trumped-up charges of racism.

    Of course, the plan to woo the right backfired, ultimately, because of a number of unpredictable factors: the extended primary season, in which Clinton won the large battleground states; the media's exposure of Wright; Obama's remarks about "clinging to guns and religion"; and because of the grudging admiration Clinton won from independents and some Republicans as the primary season went on.

    In retrospect, it was a brilliant move to unite the "progressives" and the Clinton-haters on the right for the purpose of winning the early primaries. Too bad for Obama that he couldn't wrap up the primaries while he still had the support of non-Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Over-Educated and Under-Informed (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:38:55 PM EST
    In 40 years - there are only 12 years of a Democratic presidency.  Carter and Clinton.  Clinton was able to wrestle 8 years in a Republican epoch. No one can ignore that or write it off.

    I wish that all of these new-fangled CCs would learn some G.D. history - and some appreciation.

    over educated? naw, under educated. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    today a degree of high school graduation doesn't mean as much. why? because standards continued to be lowered. that really doesn't accomplish much. take a look at what we've done and how easy we are to fool.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton was a great American President (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    in spite of the right wing smear machine.

    He sure was! (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    That is why it is especially disheartening to have a faction of the left-wing smearing him during this campaign. It's disgraceful.

    Just about a week ago while Obama was campaigning in Florida, he was asked a question that had to do with picking a running mate, I think (didn't hear the lead up). Anyway, the questioner said something about having a VP candidate whose spouse can sometimes be a "pain in the butt". Obama laughed, Bob Wexler laughed, there was raucus applause. Of course, that example is mild compared to the out and out hatred shown Bill (and Hillary) by the media and Obama supporters. But Barack Obama and Bob Wexler should be ashamed of their responses.

    Bill Clinton was (and is) respected by most of the international community. His accomplishments are many and important. And he has something that I don't see in Obama, true compassion.

    [ Parent ]

    Compassion and empathy (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:33:58 PM EST
    seems to be what's missing from a portion of society.  I would argue that portion has never been larger than it is now.  One of the things missing in Obama seems to be empathy toward his fellow men and women.  Same for his support.  It's shocking to me.


    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    This is a hallmark of the Obama movement.  Your candidate whom you believed in with all your heart got screwed over and pushed off the ballot?  Get over it!

    [ Parent ]
    I actually see that kind of dismissal (3.00 / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    from hyperpartisans of both sides rather than coming from the campaigns.

    When the campaigns do say something below the belt, it is not anywhere NEAR as bad as what I read on the blogs....but often the bloggers are so attuned to any slight insult that they read in the worst motives for the candidates...who after all have really hard schedules and have to be "on" all the time.

    The media, however, is another story. I hold Keith Olbermann and crowd in high disregard after their "performance".

    [ Parent ]

    It's something (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    that the young 'uns don't realize and it's something that they've done that will probably come back on them in Nov.

    I think that lots of them don't realize that their could be a large anti Obama contingent in Nov. You reap what you sow and all.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:08 PM EST
    wonder if they do realize it and that's why they're still so vicious?

    [ Parent ]
    No, I think it's because they simply can't (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    control themselves.

    Almost everyone under a certain age has grown up with the model of political discourse being shouting, hostility, smart remarks and scoring points off your opponent.  All those talking heads shows, that's all they do.  The most smirkworthy comments get the biggest applause and the biggest ratings.

    Then add in the internet as the political medium, where you don't have to face the person you're attacking or (in its milder forms, condescending to) in person, and don't have any of the usual restraints of politness or just plain ol' respect for other human beings, and the whole thing is magnified a million times.

    I'm not condoning it in any way, not at all.  But I think they truly can't discipline themselves, even when it's counterproductive.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama wants a tent big enough (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    to contain people who think Clinton was a bad president.

    Funny.  That's too big for me.

    Besides. Given that 65% of the country thought he was a good president someone's gotta explain WHY it needs to be that big.

    fair enough but.... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    ...what happened to change and the new kind of politics? Was that all just BS too? So it was worth it to tarnish the reputation of the one successful president the democratic party has had in decades in order to get another politician the nomination?

    Kinda (1.33 / 3) (#63)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    Sure, kinda.  Hardball politics isn't really an option in the modern world.  But my point is that it's practiced by all parties, including the Clinton campaign, and that it just doesn't justify the level of outrage I see here.

    Here's an example: this site is a catalog of perceived attacks (mostly racial) by the Clinton campaign on Obama over the race.  Is it true?  Factually yes: almost all of these incidents were well documented.  Morally?  It depends entirely on your perspective.  The Obama supporters who started it clearly think so, but you guys probably don't.

    The point is that it's all perspective.  Obama folks were seeing racist attacks where none were intended.  Is it too much to believe that maybe you guys are likewise being oversensitive about some things?

    [ Parent ]

    This thread is about Bill Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    and honoring his legacy.

    Can you Obamans NEVER stay on topic?

    [ Parent ]

    I guess it just depends on how much... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    ...tolerance one has for hypocrisy. I happen to have very little.

    [ Parent ]
    Go make the Obama blogs like Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    Then come back and give us a report on how you did.

    [ Parent ]
    I am (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM EST
    And will continue to do so.  Most of them, being on the winning side, are having an easier time forgetting, honestly.  But yes, I'll keep trying to patch things up.  I think it's important.  Do you disagree? :)

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    Any 'forgetting' done here won't be accomplished with repeated posts full of sanctimonious BS.


    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#86)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Listen...you know that old quote... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?

    Now just imagine MILLIONS of women scorned.

    This is not taking into account the "bitter" working class whites that makes up the base of the democratic party.

    Now remember these two lines:

    McCain won't be as bad as Bush, because nobody could be as bad as Bush.

    At least if he wins, he'll only last one term.

    You're going to be hearing them alot.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I went over to the McCain site last night.  It is weird to be on a Republican blog.  I was surprised that his platform is not nearly as conservative as I imagined it would be.  Conservatives had little rants posted that McCain didn't represent their views. The blog had TONS of Hillary Dems who are switching over.  Then there were lots of Obamabots who were hunting down Hillary Dems to attack them.

    Bizzarro World, It's Bizzarro World.

    [ Parent ]

    This made me laugh (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    The blog had TONS of Hillary Dems who are switching over.  Then there were lots of Obamabots who were hunting down Hillary Dems to attack them.

    Its like the bots are swarms of gnats following around former dems. It is sad and amusing at the same time.

    [ Parent ]

    That's just not nice (none / 0) (#188)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    I'm a nice person.  If you met me, I'm sure we'd get along.  I am, however, worried at the level of anger I'm seeing both here and in the Obama site of the world.  So I'm trying to patch things up by pointing out areas of agreement.

    Maybe that makes me a sad gnat, I guess.  But I'm trying to talk to you, not yell at you.  Doesn't that count for something?

    [ Parent ]

    I appareciate that you are trying (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    to take down the tone of the discussion, however, all during the primary, the level of hatred was strong and growing. Where were you then. Was there no script for you to use as your talking points? I really am curious.

    [ Parent ]
    His platform? (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    • Pro life/anti-contraceptive
    • Iran interventionism as most pressing goal in mideast
    • Pro blanket retroactive immunity for telco spying
    • Anti-government mandated health care
    • Against corporate/527 financing of elections (this one is good)
    • Nuclear power as centerpiece of climate strategy (better than Bush)

    Lots of others, of course, but those are a good cross section.  I'm leaving out the gimmicky ones (earmarks, for example) that don't actually translate to policy.  I'll agree that McCain has a history of being less lunatic than a lot of other Republicans.  But I still see a lot of lunacy there.

    Will four years of a McCain presidency leave us with another war to take care of?  It's a definite maybe in my eyes.  Would he sign a single-payer health care bill (or even an extension of Medicare to a broader spectrum of society)?  Probably not.  Would he push for a climate bill that actually reduced emissions instead of a givaway to corn farmers?  Unlikely.

    I can't tell you what your priorities should be, so I can't tell you how to vote.  But those above are some of my voting issues, and Hillary and Obama are both vastly preferrable to McCain in my eyes.

    [ Parent ]

    I will give it a shot.. (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by JustJennifer on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    The Obama camp pushed the meme that Clinton called Obama's campaign a "fairytale", when in fact he called Obama's "I have always been against the war in Iraq" statements a fairytale

    That really upset me. (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    People were just lying and lying and lying about what President Clinton did NOT say.

    It was disgusting.

    Din't inspire one iota of hope in me - in fact it had quite the opposite effect.

    [ Parent ]

    The emergent, uninformed consensus ... (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    ... is that The Clintons must have been doing everything wrong to preside over such severe losses to Republicans and conservatives.

    This requires ignorance of the major arc of 20th-century history, in which proponents of maximalist governance rose, crested, and crashed ... producing an inevitable period of triumph for the proponents of minimalist governance.

    Bill Clinton and his allies stemmed the tide. Their accomplishments were virtually superhuman, even as their performance on the scoreboard looked hapless to spectators who knew nothing of the game, or the rules, or the opponents.

    yeah right! and the rest of the dem (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    so called leadership who were there during the clinton presidency. you know like kennedy, kerry, daschle, etc all had a lot to do with losing congress. what do they do? they blame clinton. i for one am daxx tired of hearing this bull. if the obama campaign wants to try running that during the ge, then they'll be giving obama a one way trip back to chicago.


    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely heroic (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    to those of us who watched every day for 8 years as Bill Clinton wielded that vetopen and dumped red ink all over Rpublican proposed budgets year after year.

    It was brilliant.

    And no G-D help from the hapless Dems except for the tax vote which made everything else possible.  It was the last sign of spine in congressional Dems and cost them the majority.  Now they're getting even...forgetting all the corruption and mismanagement from the guyz running it all before '94.

    Oh, well....

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, I think you're on to something because... (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    ...there is also a consensus among some young people that the Repubicans are totally pitiful and that they will be a piece of cake to beat for anybody who actually knows what they are doing.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    Very dangerous that so many people seem to believe that.

    [ Parent ]
    The consensus doesn't even admit ... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    ... that there are multiple actors on the field, or that they might pursue their own interests and strategies in ways that counteract our efforts.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    was responsible for Gore's loss--I remember writing the DNC about it at the time.  Then they let her manage Kerry's campaign--same disaster.  Now, well you know the rest.

    [ Parent ]
    We were talking about Bill at lunch time (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    Even my Republican friends agreed that things were pretty good during his administration. They remarked that he had a big mess when he took over and even though he raised the taxes, most people did not mind because we were paying down the debt.

    We talked about how before the dotcoms, Wall Street was this elite group. During the 90's, we were all allowed in. Maybe that was not Bill's accomplishment but with him in office we felt confident that all was well with the world. We, as a country, were respected because around the world, our President was loved and respected. And he knew not to attack Iraq. He contained it. Bill left office with a 70% approval rating. Now that is pretty impressive. I do not understand the jealousy, the wanting to topple the tower, or the desire to destroy one of our great Democratic Presidents. It is all about the ones who control the power and the ones who want to control the power. And the losers are the American people. People liked Bill Clinton and did not like impeaching him for what he did. The people still like Bill.

    Gore made a mistake for not using Bill more. He thought that people were mad at Bill and he should distance himself. He was wrong. Bill has not been Bill because he did not want to overshadow Hillary. But Bill would have fought back. And if Hillary is not on the ticket, he just may do that. I hope.

    So true, and so well stated (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    My children were 10-14 years old at the start of the Clinton years, and they make the same statements you and I do.

    It was a happier country when people felt the administration was truly aware of their struggles and included them in the processes and profits. The world certainly felt safer on so many levels.

    Even during the scandals, they proved they were so much more committed to their family, and each other. Had Hillary left, the entire country would have felt like the children of divorce.

    To diminish Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and those 8 incredible years is to diss the democratic party and effectively state that the democrats haven't produced a leader in over 50 years.

    Make no mistake, I do not see any leadership qualities in Obama and I question the intelligence of the politicians who are busily trying to convince us there is some.

    [ Parent ]

    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    the people behind Obama are trying to wrest control of the Party from the Clintons, whom they perceive to be the leaders.  They care nothing for the people of this country.  They remind me of the neoCons.  They think they know what is best for themselves, I mean, the country, and they will manipulate us into that place.  Obama knows that is the game and he is more than willing to do their bidding because he will aggrandize himself in the process.  What a guy!

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans and Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Nessuno on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    I think Republicans went after Bill Clinton as hard and so personal because he did such a good job a president. For one thing, they had to go personal because they couldn't attack on performance very much with his approval being so high.  The other thing is I think it offended them ideologically to see a democratic president govern so well when, in their minds, they are the party of small, but effective and efficient government, and democrats are wasteful bureaucrats who are incapable of getting anything done.  I agree too, that Gore did make a huge mistake in distancing himself from Clinton.

    I have family in Europe (Italy) and they could never understand why the big deal was being made over you know what.  They were saying "what has that got to do with him being president?"  They had to have special "American mentality" analysts on the news to explain why it was being made into such a big deal.

    [ Parent ]

    For starters (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    look into what Obama had to say about the Clinton years. Not recently, where he's trying to pivot towards the positive in case he wants to "use" them.

    Then look into the painting of Clintons as racists . . .  I'm sure others will have plenty of other starting points. . .

    Major sin: (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    Conflating the Bush administration with the Clinton administration and stating that they were both terrible. This is why people are starting to believe that he's another Jimmy Carter. The sanctimonious morality lectures are pretty bad too. Gosh, we've had eight years of those. I don't want to hear them any more.

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    young people need sanctimonious morality lectures, so long as it's from a black politician and not their minister.

    [ Parent ]
    yep. (3.00 / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    but it's a tactic that is used.

    [ Parent ]
    The passive voice (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:12:16 PM EST
    isn't that a lot like, "Some people say..."? Trashing Clinton is what Obama did; he needs to own that and so do his supporters. And try to walk it back, because it was dangerously counterproductive for getting people to vote Dem in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    I left dKos in disgust (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    because of the way Hil was treated, so don't lump me in with the sexist haters please.

    [ Parent ]
    What? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    I was criticizing your use of the passive voice, "a tactic that is used," relating to Senator Obama trashing President Clinton, that's all. How is that me calling you a sexist hater? I know you're not, and I'm very sorry to have offended you. I just hate the passive voice in this context. Sorry again.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure I resent any single (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    thing that Obama did than his eager trashing of the Clinton legacy.

    Clinton built up the Democratic brand when it was weak. Obama, because of who he is and what he and his elitist movement represents, can only take the currently strong Democratic brand and make it weak.

    I do not like to think for long periods of time about the gross injustice of that.

    It especially rankles to think (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    that if Obama wins, it will not be because of what he has done for the Democratic brand, but only because of what the Democratic brand has done for him.

    And all the while he will have savaged the one President who stands as the most vivid example of to the American people of the value and power of that brand.

    [ Parent ]

    brand? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    I agree with the sentiment, but please let's use a different word than brand.  That already shows the power of advertising over us.  It's the Democratic party or the Democratic tradition or Democratic values, but please it's not the same as a kind of detergent on the grocery shelf.  That's what a brand is.

    [ Parent ]
    My only reason (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    for supporting a relatively new politician over a rather seasoned one would have been if he had actually delivered on his promise of "new politics" . He has not. So I have no reason to believe he will deliver anything else.

    So is this another case of (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    Now that It's Over We Can Remember The Clintons again?  We were saying this when everyone else was attempting to paint Bill as the biggest loser next to George Bush.  OF COURSE we should praise him. I've been saying that all along! That's why I was so enraged when they started discrediting him.

    And Digby, they don't deserve SOME of the credit for fighting Republicans. They deserve TONS of it.

    It seems there are very few left (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    in the Democratic Party who share their delight in fighting Republicans.

    Our current crop of Congresscritters is especially pathetic.

    I really believe they are insanely jealous of Hill and Bill's courage.

    [ Parent ]

    The Corporate Media still fear Bill Clinton (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by HenryFTP on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    because he remains unbeaten and unbowed by the worst they have to dish out, and of course unlike most other Democrats he is perfectly willing to dish it back.

    They remain absolutely incensed that Bill's popularity increased with the voters during the course of the honey trap scandal. And they accuse him of being "red-faced" (usually while their spittle is being flecked all over the teleprompters).

    The Media would never have gotten away with tarring Bill Clinton as a racist unless the Obama campaign had enabled them. I still can't get that out of my craw.

    Never forget (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    It wasn't just the Obama campaign that enabled it.  Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and Rahm Emanuel, to name a few, came out swinging against Bill and Hillary to shore up Obama's claim that Bill was a racist.  Rahm Emanuel even told Newsweek that he and Ted Kennedy sat Bill Clinton down and told him to just shut up and to stay off the campaign trail.  That's when I canceled my membership in the DNC.

    [ Parent ]
    It is very frustrating to think (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Dave B on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    That every last Obama supporter is going to come here, one at a time, and demand just such an explanation.  Maybe someone could put together a web page that we could just provide a link.  It could save a lot of typing.

    It'd be easier (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    to just tell them to take a hike.

    [ Parent ]
    I could listen to Bill Clinton for hours (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    Obama on the other hand?  I was eating my lunch in the cafeteria and on the 4 TVs in the room, there was Barack Obama at a rally giving some trite little speech.  I found myself having the same reaction to him that I have to Bush these days.  My stomach instantly knotted, by heart sped up and I swear my blood pressure jumped.  I thought that if he continued to speak for 10 more seconds, I was going to have to get up and leave with my lunch half eaten.  It's almost worse than with Bush.  At least Bush never called me a racist or brushed the dirt off his shoulders.  
    I can't take the risk of that happening again.  From now until November, I'm eating lunch in my office.  

    I made a similar point (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    in a thread yesterday.  Obama's speeches really are like nails on a chalkboard...just like Bush's.

    I feel like Elaine in that old classic Seinfeld episode where she went off on how much she hated the movie "The English Patient."  It's just become so cool to say that you love his speeches, when in fact they really are painful to listen to or watch.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    Obama is "The English Patient" of candidates!

    That image made me laugh, especially since I HATED that movie.

    (sorry if OT)

    [ Parent ]

    Confession (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Eleanor A on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    I watched his "victory" speech last Tuesday and I just do not get what people are talking about when they claim he's so inspirational.

    A bunch of tired lines about change, with no specifics, and a whole bunch of rhetoric absolutely stolen from Martin Luther King.

    I think he's a snooze on two legs, honestly.  And it's not just because I'm a Hillary partisan.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, but..... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    believer people love to listen to their preachers...it's the rest of us who cringe and eyeroll, moving along with a sigh...

    Luckily we won't have to listen to that for more than a few more months...then, his story is history.

    [ Parent ]

    If it's longer than a few months (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    I'm gonna pray for deafness.  Otherwise I'll never be able to turn on my TV again because he might pop up unannounced "speaking".  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    The reason its painful.. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:08:02 PM EST
    is because its like having to watch a 3rd rate magician working at kids' birthday parties over and over and over...

    We figured out the 'tricks' long ago -- and figured out that the only real skill that the "magician" had was misdirection.  The party leaders are like the parents who paid for this third rate act -- they applaud and act impressed because that's necessary to maintain the illusion for the children.

    [ Parent ]

    El Rushbo said today that Obama (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    knows how to read a teleprompter better than John McCain (read better, yes, sound better no!). I guess if you were listening on the radio, you might think that, hearing soundbites, but when you see him give his speeches, I think he's terrible. Some think he knows how to orate, I think he just knows how to grate (on my nerves)!!

    [ Parent ]
    "dirt off my shoulders" (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    Yeah, I think that many of us on the Clinton side will remember that piece of video pretty much forever.

    It should be featured on all sites that are trying to define the "Clinton Democrat". Nothing epitomizes better how Obama really regarded and treated Hillary and what she stood for better than that video.

    And let's not forget how much the Obama blogs just couldn't get enough of that video.

    Unity -- yeah, right.

    [ Parent ]

    the whole brushing dirt off thing... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Panhandle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    I just have to point this out, cause I've seen this reference to brushing the dirt of his shoulders thing many times... the problem is, it's never referenced by anybody that knows what they're talking about.

    First, he was referring to the crap from the media, it wasn't directed against Clinton.

    Second, it's a modern pop culture reference. It's a hip-hop reference. I understand not everyone listens to Jay-Z (I don't either) but it was a damn clever reference for a suit...

    [ Parent ]

    Here's your chance (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    To see the gestures directed specifically at Hillary Clinton in slow motion.

    [ Parent ]
    yes and no (1.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Panhandle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    ok, so I just refreshed my memory on the brushing of dirt gesture... and yeah that was directed at the Clinton attacks, my mistake. Still a damn clever reference I think.

    as far as the flipping the bird... never saw it before, and poor choice on his part. it wasn't anything I was referring to and I won't defend it.

    [ Parent ]

    Full transcript (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by tree on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    At his rally in Raleigh, NC today, Obama said the following: "So last night Sen. Clinton and I had our 21st debate of the year [pro-Obama boos]. I will tell you it does not get much more fun than these debates. They are, they are inspiring events [laughter]. I mean last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. Took us 45 minutes... 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices."

    He went on to say: "I don't blame Washington for this because that is just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games, getting us to attack each other. And I have to say, Senator Clinton looked in her element. You know, she was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. You know, that's alright. That's her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit [smiles, laughs at crowd]."

    "That's why she is only airing negative attacks on TV in Pennsylvania... Look, I understand that because that's the textbook Washington game. That's how our politics has been taught to be played. That's the lesson that she learned when the Republicans were doing the same thing to her back in the 1990s. So I understand it and when you are running for the presidency than you've got to expect it and then you've got to kind of [makes a "brush off shoulder" motion]. That's what you got to do. That's what you got to do [brushes off his shoulder again]."

    "But, understand this: That is also precisely why I'm running for president, to change that kind of politics."

    It was a full-on dig at Clinton's character from the candidate that promises to change this kind of negative character politics. Classic Rovian speech. Go negative on your opponent while supposedly decrying negative campaigning.

    [ Parent ]

    This failure by (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by pie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    some Obama supporters to acknowlege the positive aspects of Clinton's presidency tells me one thing.

    I'll leave it up to you to guess what that is.

    It's really humorous and pathetic at the same time.

    You know, I totally agree with you Pie. (none / 0) (#107)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    And it makes me mad as hell. HOWEVER, I am trying real hard to remember that I am not voting for his supporters... If Obama can (convincingly) acknowledge the positive aspects of either Bill's presidency or Hillary's ideas, well that's another thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    you are voting for his supporters tactics. If he wins, the next time half the candidates will be using his tactics.

    [ Parent ]