Bill Clinton on Obama: Big Fairy Tale
By scarce Monday Jan 07, 2008 4:02pm
Download | play Download | play
At a event in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton rants on Barack Obama's (supposed) free pass from the press. The former president somehow managed to turn a question from a student about Mark Penn's (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager) judgment-- or lack thereof-- into a complaint that Obama hasn't been held to the same standard as Hillary Clinton on the war:
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's the truth.
If he doesn't get scrutinized now, the Republicans will later.
Obama has a paper thin resume. He's getting a free ride and it's like a fairy tale.
Wait until the media's love fest is over.
And the right-wing machine attacks him with all guns fully loaded.
this is bullshit.
Obama said this back on when Kerry/Edwards were campaigning, saying he didnt know how he would vote because he didnt have the same information the senators have, but that based on what he saw, the administration didnt make the case
the only reason he pretty much didnt give an outright answer was to protect Kerry/Edwards who were being criticized for their votes. So now of course he gets criticizes for fighting for his team.
I normally fawn over Bill, but this is a pretty desperate and weak last second attempt to save a lousy campaign.
Sorry Kyle, it's not the truth. Anyone who's been following any of this knows that Obama never supported the war and that quote was clearly taken out of context. He was speaking about how to manage the troops once the war had begun.
If the Clintons have to resort to such brazen falsehoods, they're in more trouble than previously thought.
While the cheap shot from the husband is a little low-brow, he is kinda right. Obama talks about change, but doesn't really have anything to back it up other than promises. All these campaigns remind me of my elementary school class elections where each candidate promises to give longer recesses and shorter classes, knowing that they can do neither. Promises during a campaign sound good, but how many of them are accomplished?
Obama's response was pretty effective, claiming that he had always been against the war but at that time he was answering a question regarding Kerry and Edwards' votes in comparsion to his own position. He didnt want to rock the boat of the candidates so made it seem as if he couldnt second guess them as he wasnt in office.
However, I don't really believe he would have voted against authorizing the use of force. I just see any evidence from his voting history that he would have stood up to the democratic establishment and gone his own way on that vote. He's just benefitting here from not being around then in my opinion.
Clinton is right that there is a fairy tale being spun but isnt that politics? I mean, we don't *really* believe that we know these people right? I would hope we arent that stupid.
And I don't care what anyone votes, Ill vote Clinton when it's my turn.
basically, the more the Clintons fight against a guy who isn't playing the same game back, the more people notice that the Clintons are the status quo. Dirty politics reminds exactly of what we're trying to get past, and people will therefore look past any statement of 'change' Hillary makes.
Wow. Talk about transparent desperation.
So now the other Clinton is crying in front of an audience?
Is it just me or does Bill seemed pissed that some upstart is derailing is his chance at a third term? Kind of reminds me of Bush the First's reaction to Bill's '92 run for the White House. My how times have changed...
The Clintons are scared. Their dreams of another stay in the White House are slipping away!
The thing with Obama is that he is all around just a great guy, and there really isn't anything mind blowingly wrong with him. Sorry Hillary, but you're being beat fair and square...
If the Clintons go down, they will go down kicking and screaming. Classy
Poor poor Hillary. Does she have any card to play other than "the press is not fair to me" card. (Oh, I forgot, the misogyny card)
Nice Tantrum Bill ;Now go take a nap!
Power is intoxicating. When you've done everything you think to attain power only to have it stripped away so quickly as in Iowa and perhaps tonight in New Hampshire, it's only natural to get a tad grumpy, emotional, desperate, even irrational. No one is immune, not even the big dog himself. It's over Bill.
The Big Dog hoisted his leg and took a royal crap on Obama.
Like this is going to sit well in South Carolina. Hillary will be seen hyperventalating as all those supposedly loyal voters start catching the Obama train in mass droves.
The Clinton's aren't used to losing. You think when he was defeated as Governor in 1980, he'd learned his lesson. Well, he did, but it was how to play dirty...
Arrow @ 10:
So... You vote for the guy you'd like to have a beer with? Again?
What about the guy that asked the question? I was a shallow question in the 1st place as far as I'm concerned. Who cares about a bounce? We want to see the candidates present us with issues that have to be resolved and how they plan to resolve them.
Pulling out the big guns.
Clinton is right.
First comment: "It's the truth." Second: "this is bullshit."
That made me chuckle.
What genuinely bothers me, on the other hand, is the wording of the post itself, designed to make Bill Clinton look like something of a jerk. Good reporting, guys!
Frankly, for all of the fearmongering about the troubles Barack Obama will face in the American news media, he's had exceptionally few hurdles to jump. If anything, Obama has been their darling. Furthermore, he's become this blank slate onto which people seem to be projecting their hopes and dreams. Obama isn't seen as a person, but an abstract ideal. His followers talk of him as though he were the Second Coming. I know that I am far from the only person worried about this.
There is no contest when you contrast the endless lambasting of Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama, because the former is criticized for everything but what she has actually done. Instead, people won't vote for her because they've been told over and over again that Clinton is a warmongering, evil, corporate whore-hawk-bitch. They also feel that she can't be President due to the fact that she's a woman with a 'shrill' voice and a 'cackle.' Make your own call regarding the intelligence of this political discourse and the quality of debate amongst the voting public, I guess.
In the interim, Bill Clinton continues to tell it like it is. Sure, he has vested interest, but even those who don't are beginning to appreciate the enormous, unfair mountain of sludge Hillary has been buried under while Obama sneaks by relatively unscathed. If he's not pressed now, it'll be too late. I want to see more from Barack Obama than feel-good speeches.
And here I thought only Larry Craig was into big fairy tales.
Monica must be steamed.
wow, the 'clinton-influence' is loosing its clout by the second... it is just startling...
clinton is quickly destroying his reputation. of course, i am biased, clinton was a neoliberal, bent on weakening the liberal side of the democratic party, and who signed legislation that reagan would have salivated over.
KyleXY @ 1:
And after what they did to Kerry I can only imagine what they got in store for Obama.
tails.
god, this is increasingly infuriating. Hillary throughout the campaign had benefited from her sense of inevitability, name recognition, being able to cite some of Bill's accomplishments as her own, showing her 'battle tested' fights against those that hate her, that she can kick a republicans teeth in. all she had to do was close the deal. she didnt.
Dragging Bill along has been a huge mistake, it turns out. Every time he defends her, especially after this 'crying' debacle (regardless of what you think of that clip), this image of angry Bill out there defending his wife...
it really doesnt look good. I thought Hillary was the perfect example of how the first women president should behave politically, and yet she's making mistake after mistake. she cant stand up for herself without getting on peoples nerves, using counterproductive language, or attacking people on issues she's no angel on. I think I flipped her the bird when attacking Obama on health care - she's been bought by that lobby and has the gall to confront others.
Ugh. I'm frankly glad to see the door slammed on her campaign. if this is how she behaves when behind against a fellow Democrat, imagine her 'unlikeable' image vs a Huckabee or McCain who like it or not, carry a much lighter demeanor even under duress.
While I'd take Obama over Hillary any day, Bill is right. The media is not scrutinizing the candidates equally and frankly, it is frightening that they are able to influence the results so much. John Edwards is almost never mentioned in the coverage and he's having trouble getting support for that reason alone. Obama is enjoying a pass from the media, but we should ask ourselves how long that will last. If they have this much control over who becomes popular, then they can just as easily take it all away when they want some free marketeer republican to win the general election. So, while I'm glad that Obama is the beneficiary of the media edge, I would much prefer that there be no favoritism in the media. It feels pretty good right now, but it could very easily bite us in the ass if we don't call them on it--especially while it benefits our favorite candidate. Actually, only Obama really has the credibility to criticize it right now. If he supports fair and open democracy, then he should probably do that.
Is it just me or does Bill seemed pissed that some upstart is derailing is his chance at a third term?
No, Michael, it's not you. The Big Dog is pissed that his chance for a de facto third term is on the derail track.
Like Hillary was going to allow him to run anything as First Husband... :rolls eyes::
This simple truth is this;
Obama is playing on our emotions by talking about hope, courage, change. He's hitting all the right buttons for progressives, just like GW did for the conservatives. We're falling in love with someone because of rhetoric.
Does this country need someone who's playing on our emotions again, or do we need someone who is cold, calculated, and reasonable who has stood up to the neo-cons again and again.
The Clintons have been through the right-wing wringer and come out the other side just fine. They have been investigated by Ken Starr and there's nothing there, and the right wing knows it.
We don't know what's in Obama's closet the neo-cons can use against him. But, we're in love with him, so who cares. Let's vote with our gut and hire an "outsider." Look how well the Carter administration did. /sarcasm off.
i've said this before and i'll say it again. for years, i've heard all the bad things about the clintons and i've pooh-pooh'ed the criticisms as excrement from the right wing smear machine. one thing i'm finding out though is they may have been on to something in describing them as amorally ambitious. obama's my guy and one thing i'm learning with my guy being on the other side of the firing line is that the only thing the clintons care about is winning. that's it. winning. they don't care whether they do it clean or dirty as long as they do it. i hope people see that we need them out of there ASAP.
People resented Clinton for being the front runner, resent them for losing, resent them for fighting back... Lemme guess, youll resent them for bowing out as well? No doubt sending them on their way with pithy insults. If Obama loses the general election it will somehow be Hillary's fault I'm sure. I can hear it now.
The screaming Howard Dean escaped with less vitriol.
Whatever one thinks about Senator Clinton,
Bill Clinton is absolutely right about this.
Obama's posture as an anti-war icon is full of holes.
Not only did he admit that he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution,
he went ahead and campaigned for Lieberman's reelection. Yeah. I would really want Obama in my corner...
until my back was turned.
He's voted for every damn funding bill - as uses as an excuse crap like, "well - the troops are there now and they need the money". This is 100 % pure Bush talk.
He is as full of shit as anyone when it comes to the war in Iraq - and he should be held accountable by anyone who cares about ending the damn thing.
Arrow @ 10:
Oh, finally someone who knows Barack Obama personally. And I bet you know for a fact that Hillary Clinton is an evil witch, right?
Ninety-nine percent of what is used to defend Obama is utter conjecture. Why? Because the man can offer nothing but promises due to his lack of experience and his lackluster voting record thus far. Someone above nailed it while referencing schoolyard politics; he might as well promise to lower taxes, since the public will vote for anyone who says they'll do that.
I think Obama is going to start taking some heat and all those people who are raving about him might want to start asking questions. I like the guy, but most people voting for him are stupid Americans who only know that he's a great speaker, and he stands for change. That's not really enough to make him President. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have what it takes, but most voters have NO IDEA about the specifics of his ideas. HOW is he going to fix global warming? WHEN are the troops coming home? WHERE is the healthcare?
At least Edwards has been actually giving some specifics on taking on corporate greed.
Whoever the Dem is, I'll vote for them. I think they are all solid people, but they have to get us healthcare and bring transparency back to government - and that they need to make this clear to the voters that it's more important than a border fence or prayer in schools.
CNN just debunked everything that Bill said. Not only that but they showed this has all been debunked by the press before.
I think Obama got it right when he was asked about this rant Bill had. Obama said they are just frustrated and he believes they will re-coop and eventually get back on point.
If he doesn’t get scrutinized now, the Republicans will later.
Obama has a paper thin resume. He’s getting a free ride and it’s like a fairy tale.
I have three words for you:
George Walker Bush
It's paypack time. We're putting in a weak guy to make-up for their weak guy.
Let's choose a dark emperor who can be VP and run things.
I know.....Bill Belichick.
bubba @ 30:
Oh please don't tell me we're arriving to where the Dems are going to be saying "It's Clintons Fault" for another 8 years.
Obama should take heat, that's the process. We don't want it all sewn up and find out he can't take the heat. He needs his tires kicked and win or lose, the clintons will kick his mofo tires.
Bill Clinton thought bubble: "Dang it. I want to get back that Playboy that I stashed behind the radiator in the West Wing when Hilary came in. I'm sure it's still there, 'cause no way would a beer can fit behind the radiator, so why would George find it? It was signed by Heather Carolin and everything... Dang it this Obama kid is gonna screw that up... Hmm... I wonder if he's picked a V.P. yet. I used to leave Al alone in the Oval Office once in a while, I'm sure I'd get a chance at that radiator..."
Look, if we want a chief executive who is truly qualified and can be comfortable in the Oval Office, we have two choices. Hillary is running. Al is not.
Though it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with who actually would be a better President, without a doubt Hillary has not been treated fairly by the media, and the focus on Mark Penn is evidence of that.
Kyle - you act like the attacks will WORK. if they're not working for Hillary, and they're not working for Romney vs his contenders, what makes you think they'll keep winning this year?
Are there faults with Obama? sure. Are people projecting their dreams on him? Yup.
But here's the thing: HE'S ELECTABLE. Am I justifying the 'have a beer with him' crowd? Not really, I'm just stating the facts: the Clintons are not running the campaign that people want. So whats been their strategy?
Instead of just being who they are and playing to their strengths, they are now doing a transparently poor imitation of Obama's campaign message. Why? Because they want to win no matter the cost. It is truly desperate and it only snowballs the problem. Its pretty hard to run on establishment experience and change at the same time. The people have spoken, for better or worse. Deal with it.
Well if one wants to cave to the establishment Dems, then Bill has a point. At least vote for an establishment Dem with some experience.
LOL. We're screwed either way. The "changes" they want to make are not going to halt or even slow the downward spiral of the US economy and our foreign policies. They will only benefit a few at the top.
Bill needs to go away. His pathetic attempts to recapture the spotlight are embarrassing. He's like an old, broken down athlete who retires...yet just can't stay away from the game.
I'm sure in his head, he was already back in the White House...then someone dared to derail that plan.
Bubba, I don't resent them for running, but this is a bit too much. Really, give me a brake Bill. His claiming the moral high ground here is a bit much. Granted, the whole impeachment thing was a total waste of time and taxpayers' money. That being said, Bill is NO ANGEL and his attempt to portray himself and Hillary as such is laughable. This all being said, I like Bill when he was the president and I appreciate all of the work that he has done in his post-Presidential years. However, in my opinion, this whole speech just smacks of desparation.
With respect to Obama, if he is the nominine and if, GOD FORBID, he loses in November then I would blame him. Not Hillary, not Kerry, not Dean, HIM.
I'm still suspicious of Obama, not because he reminds me of Saddam Hussein (the middle-name thing) but with his unity talk he reminds me of boosh running in 2000.
Bill is right, Obama has no experience is going to get chewed up and spit out by the GOP, he's already made mis-steps, does this guy really know how complicated and tough the world really is?? Everyone is so happy because he speak of change, hello, how is he going to do it??
I'm wondering if Bill's ego is getting in the way here. Does he think Hillary is keeping him from winning the race? Is he running vicariously through her? Maybe he doesn't realize it but it sort of looks that way to me.
I like Bill but when he made that statement about him not being able to make her taller, younger, or a male. He seemed to be saying this was his product and maybe it wasn't what it should be, but it was his product. Who asked Bill to make Hillary into anything but who she is? When did he become the maker of candidates?
I am interested in seeing how Obama handles himself when the cons open fire on him with everything under the sun.
How do you spell desperate. BFD Bill. Barack has made hawkish statements and so has Hillary, so get over it. Barack is sounding like a leader because he is one and has been one for years in a frigging tough as state, Chicago is rough frigging politics and Barack excelled in that climate for years before running for senate. Barack is staying positive and making the right moves when it counts and Hillary is whining and blowing it at a critical moment and that COUNTS too. However at the end of the day all the Dems can be glad that Rudy G and the fear mongers are going down in flames. Democrats our coming out to vote in twice the numbers. What a grand time.
I just contributed to John Edwards campaign. Time for action, not just tapping away on the keyboards.
I don't think Bill speaking up like this helps Hillary.
She has people who would normally do that, but not a ex-President.
I don't see the Clintons as desperate. I see the media suggesting to people all over the place they are desperate though.
The meme that Obama is hollow is not true. He has spoken about specific priorities and policies in many speeches. For instance, on one hand HRC criticizes him for not mandating health insurance, a specific policy difference. Then she says he is all hot air and no substance. Yes, she has more wonkocity and depth on specific policies, but idea that Obama is hollow is a function of "change" soundbites that ignore the rest of what he says. His website has lots of specific policy priorities listed and he talks about them when asked and has in speeches. He has been selling the image thing big the last month to motivate people.
HRC does have more federal policy experience, no doubt, but Obama is not a cipher. That is Clinton spin to set up the dichotomy of style over substance. THAT is bullshit.
Maybe Hillary can yank out another nose hair and cry for us.
That was such a touching moment yesterday.
No matter what slick willy says his speeches are not going to change the publics love of Obama. I actually read an article earlier that stated that Obama is the democrats Regan.
Dear Bill:
You had a great run as a politician, but are you not retired now? Does your wife, when trying to prove how unfair the "woman" label is, really need you to fight her battles? Does it not make her look weak? Are you not tearing apart and hurting your own party for personal gain? I'm sorry, but everyone knows what happens when you play dirty politics, you lose and the party loses. Right now Mr. Obama, whether everybody luvs him or not, is bringing voters, big numbers of voters, to the Democratic Party. Is that not what lost the last two elections? Lack of support? Why do you want to destroy the entire party, just so your wife can be elected? What makes her any more viable than Obama, or Edwards? Because you can play dirty? Isn't that what you and your supporters cry incessantly about that has been done to you? Do what's right Bill. Go back to retirement and your nice little pension. Write some books, maybe shoot some golf with good ol' GDubya's daddy. Leave the politics up to the new kids on the block. Time for younger people Bill. Experience? That is what is wrong with todays politics Bill. Too many "experienced" politicians playing a game.
Yours Sincerely,
A Concerned Canuck
Exactly. He's right that it's a fairy tale. But fairy tales sell.
Still, this aint over. Win or lose in NH there will be an inevitable buyer's remorse once they see Obama clearly ahead. That will be Hillary's last chance.
Bill would be right, If the GOP had a candidate to stand on. Who will look better, Mitt-Flop, Huck-a-Bible, or 9ui11ani? And Hillary wouldn't be torn apart for her Stance on Iranian National Guard, or her Support of the war? Or her vote to give telecoms amnesty?
Kettle vs. pot. FIGHT!
Bill Clinton to the majority of Democrats who support Obama: "You know that dream you have for the country? It's a fairy tale. Sincerely, the hawks of the 1990's."
wha, wha, whaaa
listen,
The kid who asked this had a point, and a god-damned former president opened, embarrassing himself in the process, and makes his wife' campaign (not his campaign!) look more desperate and volatile than maybe it needs to. Justified or not, Hillary's camp is next to done and...nobody will write about this speach again, though it is affecting folk's vote in the present.
Mostly, anything anyone else has to say is just an opinion.
What is this fantasy that Obama hasn't been fully vetted as a candidate? All of the candidates have. There's just not a whole lot of dirt and skeletons in the closet. The real bad stuff like his past drug use is a non-story because he already documented it in some detail. Bill Clinton could have learned something from this kind of up-front honesty. Had he admitted from the get-go about Monica, it would have been a non-story. But Bill was too emerged in his me-against-the-press mentality. He didn't get it then and he doesn't get it now.
Look. Bill Clinton was a way better president than George Bush. But I just don't think we can handle another eight years of the BS explanations by the Clintons every time they're asked a tough question.
This video of Bill just reinforces my decision of MONTHS ago, when Hillary first announced her candidacy, that I will not support her in any democratic primary race. She'd be better than Mtt, she'd be better than Huck, but she wouldn't be better than Obama or Edwards.
Matt @ 3:
Sorry Matt, but Kyle is right. Hillary's press coverage has been unrelentingly negative, while Obama gets endless "soft news" stories about him.
Even among liberals Obama is getting by on good looks, and uplifting hokum. Sorry but sexism is stronger than racism in liberal circles. Just like in 1870, liberals are going to pass over women, for (black) men. Only this time, we're dealing with one superbly qualified, highly competent woman, and a black male with lots of potential, but who remains unproven. After 8 years of incompetence, liberals need to rally around their most capable candidate, not the one that talks the best talk.
Bush (VP) / Bush (VP) / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton?
Are there really only two families in all of America "worthy" of being in the White House?
Skull and Bones Skull and Bones Skull and Bones
We've already had nearly 28 years of this insanity.
Do we really want it to be 32?
36?
I am so sick of the Football Team Mentality of American voters.
Let's put Obama through the wringer and see if his schtick is just a Pepsi jingle or if it's the real thing. If we don't do it now, the Republicans will. I think Hillary (whom I support) is injured and if O'Bama doesn't survive the grilling, then Edward's "nice guy" strategy will pay off and he may yet win.
Nascar @ 55:
Reagan? No thanks I don't want to go through that again. And neither do all the Dems I know.
You know, the early primaries are quite the expose on people's fantasies.
Then nothing happens for the entire month of February (except for S. Carolina, which won't exactly change anything).
Then comes March. All of a sudden Obama will look weak, and Clinton will regain her lead. And everyone will fall all over themselves trying to explain it or shoo it away.
The suggestion that Clinton is anywhere near a 'last chance' is HILARIOUS. She is the strongest candidate, and that strength won't be measured until you get states with actual primaries and actual populations. Just wait, that's coming. And the Clintons know that, and anyone with half a clue knows that.
But it will be excellent watching the fabrication and mythmaking, as the left once again shoots itself in the foot mistaking its own prejudices for those of the nation in general.
hillary needs bill to fight her battles now? that dog don't hunt.
she is done...thank god. I'd rather Edwards though
Biggus Diggus @ 66:
The Cons support Obama. In fact I've never seen so many Republicans cheering on Obama. Doesn't that strike people as a little odd?
Maybe it's just a female point of view, but if I were Hillary I would resent my husband sucking all the air out of my campaign with his rants. Who are we talking about? We are mostly talking about Bill and Obama here. He's pushed her into the shadows with his remarks today.
The message president bunny pants made yesterday about the economy doesn't seem to have worked very well. The DOW dropped over two hundred and thirty points today.
The Clintons are too closely connected to the Bushes.
I wish Bill had been Poppy and Barbara's kid - maybe we wouldn't have the chimp in office now.
But, that's what's probably killing Hillary - her being establishment, and all that. Her husband's willingness to encourage her to give Bush a role in her administration is pissing off everyone who was on her bandwagon - even her staff is starting to bail and look for employment elsewhere.
Bill looks upset that he has to work at securing the presidency for Hillary, something she is entitled to as his heir apparent.
I've completely lost respect for him, and I can't stand her at all.
I have come to the realization that Obama is really more hype than substance. I'm a resident of Illinois, and I can't honestly think of one thing he has done for his constituents. There's massive corruption at every level of state and local government, our physical infrastructure is crumbling, taxes are skyrocketing, and Chicago-area public transportation is on the verge of collapse, yet he's done nothing to address these issues and has spent his entire senate career running for president. That's not what he was elected to do; he may be long on vision but way short on actual solutions. About the only thing he has to his 'credit' are a couple of shady real estate deals with a now-indicted local real estate developer/power broker (Tony Rezko).
One more thing to keep in mind: Obama's rise is an engineered product of the corrupt Daley/Emmanuel/Crook County Dem. Machine. No one gets to sit at that table without the blessings of the puppet masters. That being the case, you can be certain there are powerful interests behind Obama, and they will certainly be expecting to collect their due should he win come election day.
Pete @ 65:
Political power is accumulated. It is not the result of populism in general.
Boy Wonder WAS NOT elected in 2000, and WAS NOT elected in 2004. So this dynastic opinion is as fake as wooden cheese.
So all you need is a wooden mouse, and you have a theory.
#55: Yep, Obama's charisma is similiar to Raygun's and look what we got.
Great speaker, great guy, one you'd have a beer with, but Obama has yet
to face any significant questions as to precisely how he is going to end the
war, improve the economy and implement a nat. health care plan(just to name
a few of the major issues), and you can bet that if/should he become the Dem
nominee, these are the types of hard questions he'll face and knowing that,
it is time for him to speak to them NOW and not after being the nominee.
I have attended one of Obama's rallies and am/was impressed, however,
his position/stand on key issues are yet unanswered, so for now he is being
considered, however is not a "lock".
Sad, truely sad.
Tread carefully, Big Dog.
You go after Barack, particularly in South Carolina at your own peril.
We knew Bill's flaws, and we knew hs was being wronged in the Monica wars.
But now, his desire to get back to the WH is taking him into dangerous territory.
There is a chance for Hillary to go back and lead the Senate for the next 20 years.
President Obama would certainly use Bill's experience around the world to rebuild
the Cheney/Frat-boy damage.
But, as someone mentioned, there is a thin undercurrent of resentment
against the Clinton Machine, and they risk losing a lot.
The problem is, they have NO place to go?
Hillary was THE most known, most viewed candidate in years?
Just has her true believers will NEVER desert (Jerome and Taylor Marsh types)
those who loathe her are now just seeing their beliefs come to fruition?
Any, ANYONE care to say HOW this wins over the independents that are
giving Barack the huge numbers?
Oh, Big Dog...Stop, before the blow-back causes you irreparable harm.
LOL oh man bean me up scotty!
L.A. Confidential @ 70:
Care to provide me with some links? Or do you believe that some opinion post in the National Review constitutes an up swell of Republican support in order to make Obama the nominee so they can defeat him with someone they don't even know who will be the nominee on their side.
I am disappointed that you are posting Clinton's attack without commentary. I am beginning to think that C&L is losing it. He is playing with words to distort the only candidate in the entire Senate that voted against the war. It is this republican style negative campaigning that now erupts from camp clinton that is driving her followers away to Edwards and Obama in droves. Clinton pulls one editorial from one newspaper to attempt to take down a consistent argument against the war that Obama posed from the start. Watch this interview from 2002 before the war began:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po
His position never changed. Not once.
And yet, C&L is now posting Clinton's right-wing strategy of smearing and dividing rather than real campaigning as if it is fact. I am so disappointed.
L.A. Confidential @ 70:
Actually, it strikes me as diabolically Rovian. We have an unvetted young politician with not even one senate term under his belt. He gives a good speech and has a smile right out of a Pepsi commercial. But as soon as you put white-haired McCain next to him in the general election and there are a few more terrorist incidents or international crisis, people are gonna look hard at both guys. Most of the non-liberals will blink and go with the old white-haired guy.
pissed off patricia @ 34:
Angry @ 31:
Absolutely.
Obama has been dishonest about his stand on the war and he should be held to account for it.
His actions speak much louder than his bravado.
WashStateBlue @ 77:
From this new estimate, it appears that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim. While the amount spent on promotion is not in itself a confirmation of Kefauver's depiction of the pharmaceutical industry, it confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry and provides an important argument to petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1...
Radian @ 74:
Emmanuel FOR SURE backs Clinton, not Obama.
Puppet masters are not pulling Obama forward, that's independents, new voters, and angry Republicans. It's the backlash on the Bush years. And it is not a stable vote -- it will swing back and forth with every gust, because populist voting is the will-o-the-wisp.
Emmanuel is NOT a populist.
KyleXY @ 1:
You said it. The Swift Vets are all set to go. They've raised millions from 3 big Republican contributors, including T. Boone Pickens, the oilman from Texas and long-time far-right bagman.
They're going to turn Obama into Senator Osama Hussein Willie Horton. Admitted dope smoker, cocaine user, closeted Muslim, Librul opportunist, phony black man, phony white man, no resume, blah, blah, blah. And a bunch of other lies right out of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook.
You know the drill already. Every smear and lie will be used to nail this guy. It's a golden opportunity - unlike Hillary, Obama is a blank slate, just waiting to be smeared with fresh slanders.
"one superbly qualified, highly competent woman"
The fact that people actually believe this nonsense is the strongest evidence that the media has been treating HRC with kid gloves. How is she "qualified," "competent," or "experienced"? Being married to Bill somehow counts as experience?
I need the engine rebuilt in my '69 GTO. Does anyone know the spouse of a good mechanic?
75 Paul in LA Says: Pete @ 65:
Are there really only two families in all of America “worthy” of being in the White House?
Political power is accumulated. It is not the result of populism in general.
Boy Wonder WAS NOT elected in 2000, and WAS NOT elected in 2004. So this dynastic opinion is as fake as wooden cheese.
So all you need is a wooden mouse, and you have a theory.
I have a woody, does that count?
Clay @ 79:
Study political Psy-ops then you won't need any links.
Go Bill!!!
I'm an Edwards supporter through and through... and Obama is totally corporate, so I'm happy to see Bill going after Obama's record.
And as far as Obama's "hope" campaign..... what a joke.
When he mentions the people of Selma and the *hope* they had.... get real.... they weren't "hoping" in the 60's. They fricken got out and DID something, like boycotting the bus company and risking life and limb for the rights they believed in.
So I guess according to Mr. Obama, I can *hope* away the Bush administration??
I want Edwards to lead us. Period
And I would take Hillary over Obama any day. Look at all the protection he has today.... 12 Secret Service agents. If he were ever to be POTUS..... can you imagine where the *Free Speech zone* would be?? I don't believe he will listen to the people.... he's not a boat rocker..... but Hillary could be.
And not to mention all his missed votes.... he doesn't even believe in his incredible responsibility towards the American Public.
John Edwards is the best.... and I'm afraid Obama has tapped into the mentality of our american idol generation. Shame on him.
Thanks for confirming Hillary and Obama are the same thing. They both represent the same corporate interests. Both are Repugs disguised as Democrats. Vote for a real Democrat.
Kucinich 08
or Edwards if you must
but please, not Hillary or Obama
LET OBAMA AND BILLARY KNOCK EACH OTHER OFF!
I am all for that! :)
Doggiebobo @ 76:
Obama is only about fifty times smarter than Reagan, who thought that New Mexico was part of Mexico, and who was obsessed with little green men, and had to be briefed by CARTOONS.
Running down Obama in panic is just as absurd as hunting down the Ancient Clinton Hatreds, and dancing in front of those fires.
We're in the catbird seat. Any Dem win is GREAT. The real question -- cough -- is whether Bushco has any intention whatsoever of turning over power. People really ought to break out of their fantasy that the coup is over. We have to FIGHT, all year, and not just pretend a tuxedo sale is a wedding.
50 Ron Says: I just contributed to John Edwards campaign. Time for action, not just tapping away on the keyboards.
________________________________________________________________
I'd druther tap on keyboard than tapdance in menrooms' toilet stalls
Annoyed Canuck @ 86:
And I get the uneasy feeling what Kerry went through is going to look like a picnic compared to what they got in store for Obama.
Bill Clinton is a coward and a bully.
Paul in LA @ 75:
Gee, Paul, aren't you so smart?
However, regardless of Bushie the Lesser actually winning his elections the fact remains that we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the last 28 years.
Regardless of the vote count it has still been 28 years of skull and bones.
Yeah, I know, those are actual facts, not theories...
Now, I leave you to go back to cutting your imaginary cheese.
Some observations:
If Hillary wants to win, she needs to show she's her own person. Cancel all appearances by Big Dog. Obama has shown, however much of a blank slate he is, that people want to look forward and not to the past. Bill Clinton is the past.
I think the Obama momentum may just be people who want something different and frankly he and Huckabee are the only refreshingly new candidates out there. Of those two, Obama's the only one who isn't a crazy Jesus freak.
Pete @ 65:
That argument is so intellectually lazy. "We can't vote for Hillary because there were already Clintons in the White House." If it makes you feel better, pretend her last name is Smith, and just decide based on her record. There would still be lots of people on both sides of the debate, but at least the debate would be about something that matters, not her last name. And if my memory is accurate, those Clinton years weren't that bad, so the prospect of 4-8 more of them wouldn't be like throwing another Bush in the White House.
And notice how eager the Clinton camp is to go after Obama and Edwards instead of saying why people should vote for them? This is one of the many reasons why a majority of women don't support Hillary, it's why the "youth vote" is turning out in such numbers, it's why Hillary isn't getting the support she believes she's entitled to.
Jack Cafferty had some great comments about it on CNN just 15-30 minutes ago.
L.A. Confidential @ 78:
Ah canna do that Capt'in. Ah hav ta re-align da dilithium crystals for pure anti-matter. Or couldya send us up some positive energy? Ah canna find any of the stuff anywhere.
OliverDreams @ 91:
That's all going to be over by April. Try to enjoy what's left of that fantasy, because K and E are not going to be the candidate, and my bet is neither will O.
The ONLY way K gets closer to the nod is to push his impeachment of Cheney. But instead, he's going to file on Bush, and down his entire effort. He ought to ride the pony he already took out of the stable.
L.A. Confidential @ 89:
Yeah, why provide evidence when you can make a half-assed suggestion?
Not a Hillary fan, but I think she can win enough delegates to get the nomination. To do that, however, she has to behave as a victor, shrug off early losses, and confront with confidence the MSM meme that her candidacy is in a downward spiral. I doubt all of this is consonant with her make-up.
Haven't the republicans already started taking their shots at Obama? the madrassa story, the flag pin, the real estate/lobbyist thing.
Let's not over inflate the republican's character assassination skill. The Karl Rove method is not political genius, it's low blow, cynical, mean spirited, repetitive, deception, with just enough seed of truthiness to get past the sniff test of lazy journalists.
The Rove method stands no chance against a documented history and an active internet community. The fact that we can all vet any attack and publish the truth so that those same lazy journalists/newsreaders need only read a blog to do their jobs better is most likely the real final nail in the Rovian coffin.
On Clinton v. Obama, let them slug it out. The more they go at it, the better tested the winner will be. Every debunked attack is one less bullet in the republican arsenal.
Ian @ 80:
Obama did not vote against the war. He wasn't even in the Senate when the vote was held.
He did in fact say that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate and had
received the same briefings as Clinton and Edwards.
He did campaign for Lieberman and praised him. It's an inconvenient fact but a fact nonetheless.
He has voted for every funding bill and justified his votes with verbal garbage that is lifted entirely from George Bush.
If you want a candidate who voted consistently against the war, you should have supported Kucinich.
I could care less if you don't want to vote for Clinton, but to try to make believe that Obama is about to do anything to end the war is based on naive dreaming. At least it is not based on anything that Obama has actually done to try to end the war or rally public opinion against it. A leader he is not.
Billy Bob @ 96:
Billy Bob...LMAO bet the 90's were misery for you eh?
I feel your pain!
Clay @ 100:
That's a fantasy. HC has HUGE female support in the coastal states where most of our population is. And she can get more where that came from, because the attacks on her are humanizing her (backfiring).
Trying to blame HC for her Iraq Res vote is so mangy a dog at this point it's scratches for fleas even if there is no skin left.
L.A. Confidential @ 70:
Who gives a flying f*ck who the GOP is rooting for??? The Dems act just like the little brother who tags along after the big brother...always hoping for approval.
Here's a bombshell: No matter who the Dems ultimately select, the GOP hit squads will take their shots.
How about selecting someone you admire and respect....and not concerning yourself with the f*cking GOP???
Last time I checked the GOP's cast of characters was hardly a lineup of unbeatable giants. Romney??? Huckabee??? Thompson??? Guiliani??? Are you kidding me??? These guys are untouchable????
Pa-leez.
Kerry's problem was he didn't fight back against the swiftboat ads and he didn't do it quick. I'm pretty sure most campaign managers learned from that mistake and I'm also pretty sure when and if they start that shit with whomever is the next dem nominee, only those thirty something who still support bush will buy into it.
What is really funny is, Bill is defending him now, I got 5 bucks
says he fires Mark Penn before they hit SC.....
EyeApple @ 106:
Refer to comment #2.
fiver @ 87:
Look at her Senate record. Then look at Obama and Edwards.
Paul in LA @ 102:
Yeah, that fantasy will be over and President McCain will be the reality.
Obama Winfrey is a disaster waiting to happen. Enjoy the ride.
you should also post O's response it is on abc gma site
It is so disappointing the way these candidates waste their time to make the other look bad.
http://abcnews.go.com/gma
I am not voting for either of them and hope they grow up and behave civil
http://vote-socialist.org/
Paul in La#68: I agree, how can three(Iowa/N.Hampshire/S.Carolina) with a total
of 19 Electoral Votes be given soooo much significance as to who the Dem. nominee will be? The answer, the MSM that is who. Seems as the registered
voters(WE THE PEOPLE) are being given a pass and ignored as to how we will
cast our votes in the Super Primaries in much, much larger States. I guess the
MSM thinks of us as Lemmings and that we'll automatically follow suit of these
insignificant(in my view) 3 States. People: wake up, and when voting, select
the candidate who you feel best represents YOU, not what the MSM is attempting
to tell you.
Paul in LA @ 108:
Yeah, I mean it's just the Iraq War, right? What's even the point in stating that Hillary Clinton is a hawk and is eying Iran? It's so "mangy."
And in regards to your first point: look at the polls. Hillary sure wishes she were doing better with women, she isn't, and there's a reason for that.
Ian @ 80:
No they aren't. They (C+L) just have the brutal ungodly task of trying to report the insanity in a sea of spin.
It's up to us to interpret it.
Until kooch threw his votes to obama, I was for Kooch.
At least Edwards talks the talk. I'd give him a vote in the primary and then the general.
ysbadaden 94
50 Ron Says: I just contributed to John Edwards campaign. Time for action, not just tapping away on the keyboards.
________________________________________________________________
I’d druther tap on keyboard than tapdance in menrooms’ toilet stalls
Either one will not get your candidate elected.
Kay @ 99:
That's a stupid statement. Hillary is a Clinton...not a Smith. And as a Clinton, you can expect her to bring along all of her and Bill's old buddies...baggage and all.
Annoyed Canuck, don't disagree with a word you said but I think people are sick of the Rovian style of politics and any candidate that takes the low road is gonna pay for it....
Maybe the FAUX news eating chili with your fingers crowd will buy it but look at the huge youth turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire....The wingers pull this crap and they will lose the independents and motivate more new voters to register to get their ass out of office.
As for bubba taking the low road...the tears then the lash out was a show of frustration and anger towards the realization that "their" lust for power is being sidetracked by a candidate who has inspired the public more then HC and BC....
Pete @ 97:
Which is an entirely meaningless, falsely construed factoid.
Boy Wonder is a traitor. He stole the elections, tried to convert the country into a police state, and has a bad end coming.
Whatever you think about the Clintons, their measley two terms don't relate to the SHIT Bushco has piled on our heads, the crimes they are on the hook for (NOTHING comparable in Clinton's record), and the sad, sad result for the Republican party, DOA.
Say whatever you will about Bill Clinton, he's telling the truth here.
Obama's come a very long way on charisma, lax press scrutiny and not much else. Strip away the endless "change" rhetoric and the novelty factor, and what does this guy have?
Not a hell of a lot.
PLEASE SEE SENATOR OBAMA'S RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ATTACK:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/the-clinton-camp-unbound/
Thank you.
Democrats attacking eachother... there is a Republican in the room keeping records on all of this stuff... they will re-use it later when the Presidential Race begins... better watch out morons
The Truth Hurts @ 109:
Uh watch McCain. Everyone from Kristal to Kissinger are behind him.
The strategy is Obama versus McCain. Thats what I'm reading between the lines.
It has nothing to do with Idealism. Just raw political reality.
noone special @ 16:
Yes they are. And it will end in similar tragedy. Obama's use of right-wing talking points to attack the other Democratic Candidates will come back to haunt us if he wins, because he will be powerless to defend against those same talking points when the Republicans use them to pull the rug out from underneath him. "Even the Democratic Candidate admits (insert false talking point), but he only half solves the problem."
Obama is getting far more favorable coverage and more coverage overall than either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. When he starts sharing the coverage 50/50 and when it starts becoming more critical after the primaries, you will see him falter.
Clay @ 117:
That would be a better argument. The Iraq Resolution vote was taken under duress during a violent coup. See if you can factor that into your thinking. Because the idea that the IR connotes anything specific was debunked back in 2004, and is ancient history by now.
andy @ 122:
Uh you don't seriously think Rove has retired do you?
Better wake up
Wow. the Clintons need to keep their mouths shut. Every time they open it they show how desperate they are. Personally, Edwards is my first choice, and I think the press has treated Hillary unfairly but she is sinking her own boat.
Obama I like but he will need to get more specific.
He has Secret Service protection because of increased threats. Period. We don't want another Bobby Kennedy situation.
L.A. Confidential @ 127:
The reality is Clinton v McCain, and all the pundits know it.
And McCain is a loser.
Obama has the problem of converting his early wins -- and that is going to be VERY difficult.
why are these assholes getting angry at C+L? shooting the messenger accomplishes nothing. politics is dirty and the clintons are turning into exactly what their detractors have been describing for years.
this is bill talking about hillary's twin brother corporate candidate and the best he can come up with is that obama is just as bad as hil. :lol:
A more effective strike for Clinton would be to suggest that Obama, in his own words, wasnt in office to vote on the Iraq resolution. Then do the bit with Hagel and Hillary voting to authorize force *after* inspections. Then suggest that vote was only a few years ago so where was Obama? To highlight his lack of experience on the national level.
Just hammer away that people with longer experience have longer records. We don't know what Obama would have done (true), as his resume on the national stage just isnt long enough to establish it.
Then try.. Who is he? Where did he come from? Does he have a last known address?
lol ;)
Kay @ 99:
No, Kay, you are the intellectually lazy one.
The person who seems to have forgotten that under Bill (and yeah, those years compared to Bush years were indeed the golden years) we were handed NAFTA and CAFTA and we saw the complete undermining of the media regulation rules (exacerbated by family friends the Bush's little monster) to the point where we now have at best five (and really, to call the one minded MSM five is a little simple at this point) conglomerates pushing their singular vision on aprox. 300 million Americans.
I unfortunately remember the Hillary who voted for the Iraq War resolution (and no, I am not so simple that I do not understand or remember the political realities of the day which "forced" her to make this vote) and I also sadly remember her vote for the Patriot Act and it's equally insidious part II. I remember all the work she put into the Flag Burning Amendment while our Constitution was burned. I remember the vigor she put into researching video game violence while the Iraq War raged.
Pardon the hell out of me for being so incredibly intellectually lazy. You and Paul truly shame the pants off me.
.
Why are they attempting to argue who's the biggest non supporter - supporter of an illegal war?
Doesn't anyone see the duplicity going on here?
HAVEN'T CLINTON AND OBAMA VOTED FOR IT'S CONTINUED FUNDING?
Why can't people challenge them:
If you say you're against the war, why fund the troop activities associated WITH that war? Senator, what is your definition of DUPLICITY?
Vote Kucinich or Paul. Both have been right, since day ONE.
TRACK RECORDS show the direction one will lead us into the future.
If Obama or Hillary aren't fighting to bring the troops home NOW, how can they guarantee that they will even care, once elected? They can't! They can only make promises about changing their minds as often as their underwear, as that IS their track record.
.
And everyone trying to scare us over Obama, that is what he is talking against. You can't scare us. Democrats, Independents, Repubs the young and the old voted for him. Historic change is always difficult, but that is what is happening.
It would of been great to see him go head to head with george jr. in 2000 he would've knocked his dick in the dirt. The man's a talented orator like him or dislike him.
Seriously, this shouldn't be a Obama versus Clinton death match. Choose a candidate but don't forget the goal.
To send the CONS PACKING!
Clinton vs McCain? I don't think so! Hillary's national lead just collapsed. Enjoy President Obama. I know I will.
"Our moment is now."
Hillary's name has been in the press for a long long time. John Edwards' name has been around since the 2000 election. Of course they are going to be interested in Obama, his name is new to them.
Bill who? ;-)
Paul in LA @ 123:
As long as you say it is "an entirely meaningless, falsely construed factoid" I suppose it must be true.
Thanks for clearing everything up for this poor schmuck who is so obviously your inferior.
andy @ 122:
Maybe, but I think Obama's admission that he used drugs - including cocaine - could well be his Achilles heel.
The fixers invented an out-of-wedlock black child to destroy McCain's candidacy - worked like a charm. Think they won't use Obama's admitted drug use against him? It won't work everywhere, but it will be effective in the South and other red states.
Pete @ 135:
We, the Congress, came within ONE VOTE of stopping CAFTA, which won by the R keeping the vote open for three hours and violating the rules of the House while they strongarmed their caucus.
The CAFTA vote was in 2005. Who do you think is being intellectually lazy? You can't even keep the decades straight.
Goon @ 2:
You are excusing Obama. Either he was being truthful when he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the war resolution, or he was bullshitting. You think it is the latter case - he was lying to protect Kerry/Edwards. Whatever. Whichever way you spin it, it adds up to Obama having a big hole when it comes to credibility on the issue of the war in Iraq. Going up to Connecticut to campaign for bloodsucker-in-chief Lieberman doesn't make him look too good either.
People have become so numb that they're not even talking about the war anymore.
I'm sorry, I can't make Obama shorter, or older or a female with more experience. :)
May be our nation will go back to be ruled by the planet of apes. Remember that movie?
Pete @ 143:
You are failing to respond to the argument except by pretending it doesn't exist. That's why it's a factoid -- it doesn't have any depth, it's a false correlation. Don't try blaming that on me.
Will Nicole attack the Clintons the way she attacked Obama for "slamming" other party members? We're waiting Nicole....
Login or Register to post comments.