The Chris Matthews Show: Did Bill Clinton hurt Hillary Clinton's Campaign?
By Nicole Belle Friday Feb 29, 2008 8:28pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather) (video feed is dark, our apologies)
Chris Matthews can't help but get his Clinton hate on, even if it means some peculiarly revisionist history. He asked his "Matthews Meter" (a group of 12 regular talking heads on his show) whether Bill helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's fall from the presumptive Democratic candidate to trying to find a way to slow down the Obama momentum. Naturally, the Big Dog hurt his wife's chances, according to the talking heads. Cynthia Tucker makes a good point that we didn't get to see the gregarious, inspirational Bill Clinton of his own campaign, but the angry, protective husband, which didn't help Hillary Clinton at all. But when Matthews brings up Al Gore, who purposefully distanced himself from Clinton during his own run for the presidency as proof that Bill's Midas touch is tarnished, that's just more than a little silly.
My own take on Hillary Clinton's campaign has little to do with Bill or his input. First and foremost, the whole notion that the person who was at the top of the polls going into the primary season had the edge going out ignores history completely. John Kerry wasn't at the top of the polls, nor was Bill Clinton. They emerged after some strong wins in early states, just like Obama. And Clinton herself has not run a smart campaign, due I suspect more to her advisors like Mark Penn than her husband. On NOW on PBS, campaign strategist Joe Trippi (most recently of the Edwards campaign) contrasts the top down organization of Clinton campaign to the bottom up focus of the Obama campaign.
Login or Register to post comments.
The Clintons promised us National Healthcare. They sold us out to the healthcare corporations. They will do it again if they get elected.
On Oct 25 2004, on the stump for Kerry, Bill Clinton had this to say about Candidates of Fear and Hope:
"Now one of Clinton's laws of politics is this:
If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to get you to think; if one candidate is appealing to your hopes and the other one is appealing to your fears, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope".
YouTube video here
This was the man we admired and I miss him.
That video about sums it up. This is why Obama is winning by large margins.
I don't understand why so much of the media is still on autopilot in attacking the Clintons. My God, does anyone remember those years compared to the last seven? They were like heaven on Earth. The GOP operatives like Drudge have literally re-written history and brainwashed an entire population with talking points and propaganda that now seem permanent. I'm stunned every time I hear an Obama supporter use the terms "Billary" or "Hitlery" among others.
It's the blowjob, stupid.
Yeah, Chris Matthews is the ONLY person in the media questioning Bill's high-profile role. Sure. This is about Matthews and not a legitimate point of discussion. Come on.
I honestly cannot feature how or why either Clinton would want to have another thing more to do with politics,given the indescribable,almost inhuman hatred leveled at both of them without respite since they first set foot in Washington.
As a Canadian I recognize them(by the standards of my country)as mainstream Right leaning Moderates who would never,ever be made to account for their so called "Liberal" ideology.They would both no doubt be members of Canada's national Liberal Party,which in point of fact practices "small C" Conservative politics.Canada's national N.D.P (New Democratic Party)is much more Left Wing.
Of course Bill hurt her campaign. Also her campaign was run poorly. No matter what Matthews says. He will get one right once in a while. Not often though. Remember he picked Giuliani and Hill to go all the way a long time ago. Bill fucked up her campaign and there was nothing she could do about it. Thank god. And an Obama only comes around once in a long time. Her bad luck and shitty personality.
Campaigns run better when you have a good candidate.... Not everyone can sell snow to Eskimos.
Dave @ 4:
And the right are fools as well. Those years were just as good for the right if not better. Their hatred is blind and they have shot themselves in the foot. Bill was way too far to the right for me but I liked him because they hated him so much. Now they have McCain or Huckleberry or Romney or Giuliani. All of whom they hate as much as they hate Clinton. Hahahahahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaah
The media's hate for the Clintons and love for Obama is the difference in the campaign.
No more, no less!
You hit the mark when you refer to the "the top down organization of the Clinton campaign" as a major reason for her difficulties. Unfortunately, it would probably also be the way she would govern.
Her problems have little to do with gender or for that matter her husband. She's smart as hell, likeable, knows the government inside and out, but she's neither an effective nor inspiring leader. The answer might be that simple.
No. The media did. Anyone who can't see this election is being completely controlled by the media needs to wake up.
I was just talking about this with friends the other night. Of course hindsight is twenty-twenty, but just having Bill in the background with no exposure would have been much better for Hillary, and of course his faux pas didn't help either.
The media & Oprah!
Good old Chris. Just like the rest of the media, He's only talking about the election. What about Bush and is cronies? Hariette Myers and Bolton? These talkin heads are slaves to corporate masters. They will let Bush and his entirely corrupt adminstartion a free pass. While the middle class suffers. God save us all!
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
The media is controlling an election? You sound like Rush Limbaugh.
Clinton lost me when she made the preposterous allegations of plagiarism.
After that kneecapping, if Clinton is able to win (steal) the nomination, I wouldn't vote for her if Bush was literally up for a third term....(and I am a progressive, and I think bush should have long ago been impeached and thrown in jail)
I am counting on OH and TX to shut this down.
Dave @ 4:
Exactly
Chuck @ 17:
Yes it is. The difference between Rush and Me is he doesn't come out and say both sides are on the receiving end of it. And the fact he's a total ass and I'm not.
Chuck @ 17:
Chuck, the media has been very instrumental in selecting the candidates. Remember John Edwards, Dennis Kucinih and Chris Dobbs during the earlier debates and the camera hardly ever panned on them. They knew who they wanted as candidates.
ohio progressive @ 18:
Vote Progressive then if you can't support the Dems.
Ys he did hurt her campaign but not by his being in it but by his negativity. If he would have stayed positive and never talked about Obama they would have done much better.
I thought the most damning eveidence of Bill's contribution to Hillary's difficulties was the Intrade betting line. If you look at the trends from the beginning to now, they take a sharp drop immediately AFTER the South Carolina primary.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Feb22.html
I agree with Joe Trippi that the internet driven, "bottom up" structure that he used with Dean, and that has been perfected here in Obama's campaign is probably the next transformation of American politics. (which is a great thing as long as we can keep Net Nutrality, it means we have the chance for our "democracy" to actually be something that involves the will "of the people") but, I'm not sure it wasn't helped by the "fairy tale" comment, and the Jesse Jackson reference. There was something essentialy perverted about his going out of his way to demean Obama (it reminded me of the pejoritive "boy" that I grew up hearing everywhere) that seemed to attack the essence of the Democratic party. I think the soul of the party can be summed up in one word: FAIRNESS. And there is something really UNFAIR about Bill Clinton, "America's first black president" calling Obama "boy". Really unfair.
So unfair, it made him a Republican, (and not Eisenhower, Reagan, or even Bush) it turned him into the cheapest of conservative low lifes, like Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and Strom Thurmond, and even George C. Wallace Jr.)
You can be a president, or a campaign strategist, but not both. The two are mutually exclusive.
The best years of our lives was when the Clinton's were in the Whitehouse, thats when Matthews got his break too, how soon we forget... Bill was right when he said it was a roll of the dice to elect Obama and it was people like Matthews that made that statement into something else... How sad that the public can be that easily misled....
Hillary lost me when she said she will continue to take money from lobbyists because they represent people too!
There you have it folks. Proof positive that EVERYTHING is Bill Clinton’s fault. Thanks for that insightful report. Next up, how GH’s affect bodily functions.
Bill totally caused me not to vote for Hillary.
Roket @ 27:
Yip. It's Clintons Fault!!!!! time again.
I don't think Bill hurt Hillary but it was made to appear that way by every talking head in the media. His whole to do about the "fairy tale" was taken out of context and spread around as if Obama's chances to run were a fairy tale rather than the full clip showed of Bill talking about Obama's changes on his Iraq stance. Then there was the to do when he told the media girl off at CNN and of course no one in the medai would dare stand to have anyone say they were biased so there goes another phony story about an angry Bill to boost their own egos. Then there were the comment about Jesse Jackson winning in South Carolina and that was made to be racist sounding yet CNN had the exact same comments on TV and their website the week earlier since I both heard and read them long before Bill's comments were reported on. Have I missed any other phony stories they have made up ? This whole campaign has been the most biased I have ever watched going on in your country ever. I don't even know if I could count on one hand the number of times something unfavorable has been said about Obama but I would need a football team of both hands and feet to count the negativity towards Hillary. They praise Obama's every breath, despise Hillary's every move, and totally ignored John Edwards. Now you tell me the media has not decided that Obama is the chosen democratic one? They seem to be pushing him just like they did George Bush who was going to ride into Washington on his Texas steed and set a new tone and be totally bipartisan because he also didn't like the ways things worked. Rather than the nice guy you want to have a beer with, the mantra has changed to Obama being compared to the second coming of JFK, RFK and MLK. I am sorry, but nobody except the originals are that good.
Bystander @ 25:
Ah, yes... roll the Dice... our you could choose to shove your money into Hillary's empty slot machine...
Lets see the past roughly 37 years we've had five Cons and two Dems.
Nixon-Ford-Reagan-Bush Sr-Bush Jr
Carter-Clinton
Rumor has it Hillary is making a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live tonight! She mysteriously and quietly flew out of Dallas today with no reporters and everyone mum - the plane had a "due east" heading. Gee Oh Gee, whereever could she be going just hours before a certain live telecast?? It certainly ain't Rhode Island!
L.A. Confidential @ 32:
That would be six Cons and Carter.
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
When you find you're parroting the same lines that limbaugh and hannity are using, only arguing the opposite, maybe it's time for a cold shower.....face it, you are just as crazy and irrational as them....
this "media stole the election" stuff is pretty funny....
Yup, it's true - Hillary's last ditch effort is SNL! Check this out...
Wait, while she's hamming it up, who's answering that ringing phone......?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/01/live-from-new-yorkit_n_89384.html
Roket @ 27:
WRong-- everything is the media's fault. And you needn't thank me for that insightful and original report.
If the press didn't hate her so much, hillary would have won on super tuesday, as she predicted, as she deserves.
GonzoD @ 11:
horseshit
the media didnt force clinton to make his jackson remarks
the media didnt make hillary's campaign think it didnt have to plan past super tuesday
the media didnt tell hillary to try and use the picture of obama in a turban as evidence that he may be muslim
hillary has run a poor campaign....she has been unable to gain traction with the youth vote, and she hasnt done much to excite the electorate
blaming the media is a wingnut ploy
ohio progressive @ 35:
If you have any doubts, you should be checking to see if your vote was counted in 2004 and 2006.
Billy Bob @ 34:
You decide for yourself what has had a more negative impact on the nation. Fourteen trillion dollars in debt accumulated by the systemic waste, fraud, abuse, graft, and corruption of the Reagan Bush Regime. Or the blow job that Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton.
Bystander @ 25:
What is sad is living in the past and believing that Hillary is running an upstanding, honorable campaign. Thanks to Mark Penn, they have beed duped into believing that they must win at any cost, which fits nicely with their entitlement mentality. Thanks for your service, but the public doesn;t owe them anything. They can earn legitimate respect just like everyone else does.
Today, there was an article in the Wall St Journal saying the Clinton campaign wants to delay the results of the TX caucuses until the next morning because they feel it will damage their chances to win. Funny how they didn't have any objection to that when Bill won there in the 90"s. And they want the DNC to certify the delegates in FL and MI despite the fact that their respective state parties intentionally disregarded DNC primary date rules. They seem to think that the rules apply to everyone but them. Welcome to Republican lite.
Maybe Bill hurt Hillary's campaign, but unbeknownst to him, and in light of Hillary's new 3AM be afraid-be very afraid phone call ad, he helped Obama.
This from 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo
foreigner @ 30:
bill's jackson remarks were made as a nonsequitor answer to a question about the campaign....
they were what they were, an attempt to demean the obama candidacy
still not sure why clinton supporters dont get that
and lest we forget, bill clinton's first 2 year misteps led to the loss of both the senate and the house, and his inability to keep his pants on for a few years led to bush being in the wh
Hillary's campaign would certainly like you to believe that it is Bill's fault. Enough with the excuses. Hillary is losing because she is a terrible candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.
She has two things going for her: gender and name recognition. Take those away and she is just an ineffective senator responsible for enormous policy screw ups and cowardly votes in support of a bad war.
She is an inveterate liar of poor character... and THAT is why she is going to lose.
I was a Feingold supporter, but Obama is a much better choice than Hillary.
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
I don't know LA. Seems to be a pile of people on the blogs that do not like Hillary. Is it all because of the media, or are bloggers better informed? Guess that depends on your opinion of it. In my opinion? I have never seen a better informed bunch like on C&L and it's quite obvious from the posts here, more would vote for Obama than Hillary.
The problem is, they're both going to have to be convinced before she gives up.
Ron @ 39:
oh, i see, the media stole my votes in 2004? Or did Kerry merely surrender them to Bush so he could get back to the pig trough?
Ron @ 21:
Or did they know who the candidates were that were going to get the most votes (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)?
ohio progressive @ 37:
AS SHE DESERVES???????
right there is the problem with the campaign and the clinton supporters
nobody deserves to be pres....its a job, with the longest interview of any job in these united states
bob dole thought he deserved to be prez too
hillary deserves nothing
and she has done a shitty job in her interview
I realize that a whole lot of people hate the Clintons, and that they've always been a feeding frenzy for the media. But how much of that have they brought on themselves?
But i think that the bigger problem with Bill being such a large part of the campaign (as well as Sen Clinton tying her credentials to Bill's terms as President) is that it does bring the 90's back as a topic of thought/conversation. The world was not at peace during the 90's; moreover, we were handed the greatest opportunity to reestablish the world order in a more peaceful framing...and it didn't happen by a long shot. No, American servicemen were not dying. But the biggest reason they weren't dying was that President Clinton was unwilling to take the political knocks for flag draped coffins. He had no qualms about high altitude bombing of civilian centers.
More people were in jail for nonviolent crimes (crimes that the President had clearly been guilty of) when Clinton left office than when he entered.
The tech boom was more the result of Reagan/Bush deficit spending on geewhiz weaponry than anything Clinton did. Which is not to say that he was not a decent steward of the economy...but economics doesn't run in cycles that concur with Presidential administrations.
He advocated for NAFTA, even though members of his own party told him not to...even though it was nearly dead when he took office. Its not that trade is bad, but that was a horrible agreement.
He advocated for the conglomeration of media. And he advocated for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which certainly seems to be a part of our current financial, dire straits.
And he completely blew the opportunity to change our relationship with Russia: he expanded NATO, supported Yeltsin, and smiled while the country was raped by neo-liberal economic policies. Those three things spoiled the Russian view of us and helped lead to the rise of V.V. Putin.
Finally, we should remember that were it not for Ross Perot, he probably wouldn't have won either of those elections.
The 90's were great for a self-centered America to get "rich" and navel gaze, but the foundations of a good many of today's current problems were laid then. The biggest one being that with all that wealth, we made not one step to wean ourselves off oil. Not everything bad in the 90's was Clinton's fault, far from it. But he was the President, and that's where the buck stops.
My biggest worry about Sen Obama is that he's going to be a second Bill Clinton; we could "afford" that kind of political leadership in the 90's, but we cannot afford it now.
Bystander @ 25:
Short life span you have? Wow. The economy was ok during Clinton but far from the best times of our lives unless of course you are 30 or younger.
foreigner at 30 got it right.
The evident collapse of Hillary's campaigh is not Bill's fault. It's largely because he has been mis-interpreted and mis-quoted EVERY STEP OF THE WAY by Tweety, and Scarbourough, and Timmeh, and all those other knuckle-headed talking heads who have been directing the media coverage. Now that it's almost over for Hillary (I'm STILL holding out some hope for Texans and voters in Ohio) even some media observers (like Dan Abrahms) are starting to admit that there has been a HUGE anti-Hillary media bias since before her loss in Iowa.
I think the BOTTOM LINE is that conservative christians truly believe that women are not to be ordained... are not to be seen as "head of a household..." and certainly should not be president or commander-in-cheif. It's just not in GOD's plan. Of course, none of these hypocrits would EVER say that out loud on TV.
ohio progressive @ 47:
Troll alert! No,the media didn't steal votes, but they did fail to report irregularities. What's your real name, Kenneth Blackwell?
CowboyBob in Austin @ 52:
Your view of the political scene is about as irrational and faith-based as the doomsday apocalypse myth that so many christian conservatives believe to be god's destiny or whatever...
two worldviews that have zero to do with the facts, and everything to do with personal fantasy...yours, and the nuts you refer to derisively...
ConcernedCanuck @ 45:
Go for it. I like Obama, I like Hillary. Each has their appeal. But I have no delusions. Whoever it is is going to be stepping into the biggest mess this country has ever faced. I believe the honeymoon is going to end very quickly when it's time to get down to business.
I find it particularly funny that Clinton whines about the press... the press that practically anointed her for over a year... the press that she controlled and manipulated every step of the way. Someone else starts winning and getting some coverage and she cries about how unfair it is.
NO ONE has gotten more advantage from the press in modern politics than Hilary Clinton. No democrat, anyway.
Ron @ 53:
you're the troll.....
blackwell is insane and should be in jail, and i hope conyers puts him there....
but kerry surrendered, and the media did and has reported on the irregularities (ever see rolling stone article, for one)
[Let's not call each other troll, OK? Sitemonitor]
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
I'll second that. Whoever wins is going to have a lot of work to do to get the neocon toxic sludge out of our government.
CowboyBob in Austin @ 52:
People that think that way would never vote for a black candidate, especially one with the middle name Obama has, so that jive don't wash. Clinton's piss poor campaign is what cost Clinton, nothing more, nothing less. I thought the world was sick and tired of this "everybody is picking on me" Clinton mentality after living through 8 years of it. I guess not.
Bill Clinton is doing the world of good for Hillary's campaign.
Hillary has my 100% support because unlike some who have caught the "fever" I could see that since Iowa, she has been fighting a contest not only against her main rival OBAMA BUT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. It is so glaringly obvious even to a moron that this is the case.
ohio progressive @ 54:
Ohio progressive, you don't sound like a progressive... and you don't even sound like you're from Ohio. You sound like another nut-case republican troll... TRYING to sound like an Obama suporter.
bmw 528 @ 58:
If Clinton wins, the neocons will have fun cleaning up their own mess, as mccain will defeat her with ease.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 43:
Clinton's comments were not meant to demean anyone but to state a fact that had already been on TV and in print. So unless you want to state that CNN demeaned Obama, while they have done nothing but push his candidacy 24hrs/day then go ahead. But get over the fact that anything not positive about Obama is a smear or racist leaning.
Lest we not forget, that the rest of the world doesn't hate Bill for his indiscretions but feel that it was an episode that should have been left to the family to settle. Where were the democrats when they sat idly by and let it all happen? Where were the democrats when they let the media belittle Al Gore? Where were the republicans then who worried more about removing Bill Clinton from day one rather than worrying about the state of your country? Where was the outrage when Trent Lott stood here and said "I can support the troops without supporting the President" back in the Clinton days Sorry, but sex is not as dirty a word elswhere as it seems to be in the USA. You know the kind of comments you still hear from some like "Bill's lie to us about sex is worse than Bush lied us into a war".
ohio progressive @ 57:
Yeah, the Rolling Stone, MSM, get real, the article came out 3 years after the election and Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote it because the MSM failed to.
Bill didn't help with his dismissive comments about Obama's health plan. Actually, considering his spectacular failure to honor his own promise, I was surprised he even mentioned it.
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
We agree there, my friend. I realize you preferred one candidate over the other. I am unbiased there. But I agree. The honeymoon will be over in a matter of weeks because of the economy. Posters keep saying they want an overall Dem majority in CONgress as well as in the WH. I hope for their sake and the world's that doesn't happen. Who's gonna get blamed when a magic election does nothing to change things? Ya, that Dems and people will punish them badly. Look at the popularity of Dems right now in CONgress.
CowboyBob in Austin @ 52:
I would agree that many conservatives don't support equal rights for women, which is despicable. But that viewpoint is certainly not the prevailing view here. Personally, I don't care what sex Hillary is, she could be a hermaphrodite for all I care. Her policies and in particular, her dishonorable Republican lite campaign tactics convice me that she is not ready for prime time.
She complains about the press, and yet other than on line, I've not seen or heard this on the big bad media:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx
Wonder if Tina Fey will stand by her woman and if "bitch is the new black" still applies.
Hillary Clinton is no role model, much as she claims to be a champion of women's rights.
CowboyBob in Austin @ 61:
what do you know about ohio?
i always thought you guys in texas had a little more fire in your belly....
i disagree strongly, .and so i'm a troll?
a million people disagree with you about clinton, and so they're all duped by the media, and a bunch of naive idiots...
maybe all you clintonista whiners are just wrong....way wrong....and should take a good hard look in the mirror to see what's out of kilter....
ConcernedCanuck @ 66:
unbiased?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
"other stuff" --- how does cynthia tucker get away without explaining what that other stuff is, exactly. a bj? kenneth star? newt gingrich--what is "other stuff." I'd like to know exactly what she meant by that.
According to RealClearPolitics, the popular vote breakdown is:
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - -Obama 10,881,617
Clinton 10,579,117
That is with Florida's numbers and Michigan's. So, unless you are a Repub and believe that elections can be won with fewer votes, well, Obama is leading.
foreigner @ 63:
"CNN has done nothing but push Obama's campaign 24/7." What simplistic nonsense. Guess you didn't hear about their bizarre patriotism quiz they posted about Obama on their website not long ago. Get a clue.
mudshark @ 70:
Hahaha.......ok.......I've never loved either Clinton, but do not prefer Obama over Hillary. Both records are the same basically. As someone already pointed out though, if you take away Hillary's last name and her years as a spouse of a high ranking politician, she really hasn't done anything to be rewarded with being Prez. Heck, I think Condi Rice has more REAL experience, and that's just plain disgusting.
ConcernedCanuck @ 74:
Oh come on this is broad who was shopping for $7000 shoes while blacks were floating face down in New Orleans on National TV.
ezpz @ 68:
First of ll it has been out in the media.
Did you read the clip your wrote--"individuals at the company". Does it say it came from the "management" of the company? If your company was accused of something does that mean you shouldn't donate to the candidate of your choice?
And how do you honestly feel about all the black superdelegates being harrassed to change their allegiance because of their race? Is it okay to threaten them with having people purposely run against them in their next election if they don't switch? This coming from Jesse Jackson Jr., no less? So if Hillary is no role model for women, is the Obama campaign setting a good model for their campaign in following tactics like this? And will they say that they are giving up Kennedy's and Kerry's endorsements to Clinton at the same time they are threatening others to switch?
L.A. Confidential @ 75:
And what was Hillary and Obama doing while New Orleans was floating? I followed that tragedy closely, and I don't recall either one of them doing much either. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't read anything about it online anywhere.
Look at it this way. Maybe it BECAUSE of my experience in Texas that helps me recongnize a CON-job when I see one in politics. Just take a little closer look at the long and twisted history of Texas state political battles... and you would know a political assassination by the media when you see one too.
And about Ohio? I know everything there is to know about Ohio... I ate lunch at a road-side diner outside of Columbus once in 1972
I don't know just a shot in the dark, but for the kind a guy I think of as Bill Clinton, you have to wonder if he really wanted Hillary to be Prez. You think after all they been through he wants to be First Husband? I think of that as a step down from his position of 'elder statesman' that most ex-presidents occupy.
Personally I think if he had behaved with less 'apparent' enthusiasm for her, and more of a dignified air an ex-prez should have, he would have had a more positive impact than he did.
ConcernedCanuck @ 77:
Exactly. You know what the bottom line is? Obama is going to have to come out and say "look, I'd love nothing more then handing out free money for nothing to everyone. But the bottom line is your going to have to start doing the jobs you don't want to do and EARN what you get and where you get in life from here on out."
LOL. Thats the truth no one wants to hear or face.
foreigner @ 76:
You seem to imply that this alleged tactic was officialy sponsored by the Obama campaign. Any proof to your accusation?
foreigner @ 76:
(Bolding above mine.)
I have yet to see that anyone from the Obama camp has harassed the super delegates. Just another misleading Clinton campaign talking point. In fact, the Clintons and their surrogates have been pressuring the PLEDGED delegates to switch and the super delegates to hold off with any endorsement.
Another day, another anti-Clinton tirade from that pathetic,egocentric blowhard Matthews. MSNBC consistently blows up every tiny detail on the Dems, giving McCain a free pass, even help. If Obama thinks Matthews won't turn on him like a cornered thug, think again. He was one of the 1st to blow up the Swiftboat smear daily against Kerry, back Bush twice repeating previously disproved arguments about the invasion & occupation of Iraq, discounts the outing of Valerie Plame and the list goes on & on. Right now the Obama camp thinks they have a friend. Yeah, an enemy of my enemy is my friend style. Should it be Obama v McCain, watch & see. He's already gleefully playing the campy Kenya outfit like it's something sinister somewhere instead of what politicians do in other countries.
About once a week or so, whenever I am waiting for Olberman to come on & I catch Chris, I put together an email to Griffin et al & enumerate his outrages & partisanship. It's rather cleansing and I have actually heard back. So far we're still stuck with 3-4 hours of Tweety a day, but they did make him apologize twice & did suspend Shuster.
Buchanan, Olberman, Abrams & Maddow (in that order) are the only talking heads on that network worth the time of day. Mitchell is a creepy self hating Matthews enabler, Kearns-Goodwin, a plagiarist critiquing an Obama speech(?), Scarborough so disrespectful to his progressive guests I am surprised they bother appearing, silver spoon still hanging out of his mouth Tucker is everything Jon Stewart says he is = someone who is ruining this country.
If MSNBC had sense they would cancel Tucker & give Buchanan & Maddow 2 hours a day. I care & like what both of them have to say even when I don't agree. They have, give and deserve respect in their commentaries and observations. Especially Pat.
Bill Clinton's problem was that he didn't give a rat's ass for the people who put him in office. A democrat would never have balanced his budget on the backs of the poor, or sent their jobs overseas. And the affair with the intern was a big fat middle finger on top of the sundae. The warm afterglow that's settled over him is due to the fact that his successor is a complete moron.
I remember Al's acceptance speech in 2000, and it was loaded with stories about how the poor were in trouble-- after eight years in office. And his defense of welfare reform was truly shameful. This is what I hear Hillary talking about as "experience". It was never a claim that was going to fly, not with most democrats who could remember the '90's. She might have had better luck running as a closet Repub like her hubby-- who benefitted from a three-way split in '92, and whose opponent in '96 was the guy who took over as hatchet man when Agnew was fired.
If it was so great, Clinton's legacy should have propelled Al into office with a bang. But I remember how he took our vote and deserted us on welfare, jobs, health care, the defense budget, the drug war, civil rights...if his wife could step outside the blindingly self-assured arrogance of the Clinton circle, she might have seen the same thing.
And as an elected official? Obama's faced the voters more than she has.
L.A. Confidential @ 80:
I agree. No matter who wins, it is going to take a lot of rough seas before glory days return.
100% true.
Hillary had the majority of african american support before South Carolina. Bill Clinton's comments in the campaign changed all that. She went from 6 in 10 african americans supporting her to 1 or 2 in 10. His efforts to marginalize Obama as just another black candidate who doesn't have a chance at the nomination didn't just hurt her chances with african americans. It hurt her chances with critically thinking, equality minded voters of all races. I'm caucasion, and it was the first time in her campaign I really turned away in revulsion.
Point is, Bill Clinton purposely used Senator Obama's race to attack him and criticize his chances multiple times leading into South Carolina and just after. Either she was part of that nonsense, or she can't control her husband. In both cases, I wouldn't want her in the White House again.
And since then, its been incident after incident where she is trying to incite mortal fear about his candidacy, threatening to legally contest caucus results even before a caucus takes place (see Nevada and now Texas), parse Obama's words to misrepresent his views, withholding her tax information and records as first lady, bring in bogus election results from non-competitive Florida and Michigan races despite her agreement otherwise beforehand, and all that's left for her is her expressed intent to use superdelegates to overturn the will of the majority of the popular vote, the majority of the pledged delegates, and the majority of the states.
What matters to me is the honest integrity, thoughtfulness, and fairness of the candidate. Hillary Clinton fails to meet my standards in each of those regards, and I cannot in good conscience ever vote for her.
ezpz @ 82:
Clinton campaign was also called out for threatening litigation in Texas if the delegate count didn't go their way. Look, I'll agree HRC has gotten a lot of bad press but its only biased if they didn't deserve it. If HRC deserves the bad press then its not biased reporting, its factual reporting. We used to argue this with repubs all the time who claimed all the bad news out of Iraq was proof of bias in the media. Reporting bad news isn't bias if its true.
nsr @ 84:
People that really sit down and think about it should realize, the Clintons are NOT part of the Dem Party that people on left blogs advocate for. They are DLC. Republcian Lite. They believe in kissin' ya as they give it to ya, instead of giving you the finger like the Republicans do.
I find it funny how the clinton campaign was living it up early on with grand get togethers and later on when they were strapped for cash they just continued to spend ( which turned off some of their donors) Kinda like the closing days of the clinton administration having farewell parties on the taxpayer's dime. What would a hilary clinton presendency be like ?
Bush robbed the treasury for his buds and the industrial/military complex Clintons would rob the treasury for the health care/pharma/ insurance companies
uncle joe mccarthy @ 38:
The fact that you think my theory is horseshit, is horseshit!
Bill points out that Jackson won Carolina - he's a goddamned racist!
Did Jackson win Carolina? Yes he did! Who insinuated that he was a racist for mentioning it, the lazy fucking media!
BTW, I don't appreciate being called a wingnut.
ConcernedCanuck @ 85:
Not only do I agree with that, I think the RNC agrees with it, which is why the repub candidates were such a ridiculously poor group. McCain is a sacrifice. RNC knows the next president is going to have to deal with the consequences of the Bush presidency, and I'm sure they'd rather that pres be a Dem. And if its a black or female Dem, all the better. Their plan is to come out of this in 4 to 8 years looking better than ever.
Post 81:
You seem to imply that this alleged tactic was officialy sponsored by the Obama campaign. Any proof to your accusation?
Post 82:
I have yet to see that anyone from the Obama camp has harassed the super delegates. Just another misleading Clinton campaign talking point.
Perhaps Jesse Jackson Jr. being campaign national co-chair of the Obama campaign and it being his points and threats as reported in the newspaper, may make your point moot.
Also I read today another black congresslady from California I think that stated she can be called and threatened all they want, but she is not going to change her vote from Hillary to Obama.
And just look at the majority of those now switching their allegiance - all black congresspeople.
As I said, I don't hear the obama campaign saying they will give up the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements to Clinton.
It all boiled down to who ran the better campaign from Day One. Hillary has failed. When she started slipping she should have used her brain and sacked her campaign crew starting with Mark Penn.
Filthy Harry @ 91:
I'm betting that in 4 years, whoever wins in November is booted even if all the crap is still Bush leftovers.
Filthy Harry @87
I completely agree. It's classic 'shoot the messenger' victim mentality.
I'm really disappointed, though not surprised, that the media are caving to the Clinton's strong arm tactics of intimidation and harassment (as a couple of them, like Chris Matthews and Tucker Calrson have unscriptedly blurted out).
GonzoD @ 90:
I see where you're coming from but you gotta understand that the comment, especially seen from a black perspective was totally trivializing and marginalizing black voters and candidates (Cause Jesse only won 3 primaries, Bill was basically saying Obama ONLY won because there are a lot of black people in SC. Which is also insulting to all the non-black people who voted for Obama in SC and every other state before SC). And whether you agree with it or not, in the context of a campaign, it appears to have made a difference.
foreigner @ 92:
Nice try, but your opinion doesn't represent legitimate proof, only innuendo that supports your bias. You have real proof? Bring it on.
ezpz @ 95:
To listen to the media themselves, they have said the Clinton camp has treated them (the media) like crap from Day One. Not answering questions, ignoring, arrogance and basically bringing the bad publicity on themselves. I don't know, when you shun the entire media and treat them with disdain, chances are they aren't going to give you glorious rave revues.
M. Del Branson @ 86:
I like the speech she gave where she mocked obama by saying if he was elected the clouds would part and everything would be great does that mean if she would be elected the ground would part and everything would be crappy just like if Mccain would be elected?
foreigner @ 92:
The bullying of African American superdelgates is being done by Obama supporters, not necessarily by the Obama campaign itself.
The same way that a lot of Obama supporters are saying if their man doesn't win, they're staying home or voting Republican.
Might as well leave Bush in the White House!
ezpz @ 95:
I would be willing to concede that there may be an undue amount of anti-HRC stuff in the media, but that because the narrative of her campaign is compelling to a media dynamic that is trying to sell ad time while filling up endless hours of programming with not a whole lot of substance. But thats not the same as an anti-Hillary bias.
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
I remember back in the beginning when stories of HRC snubbing the media started to come out. At the time I though it reminded me of how Bush treats the media.
unsurebtwilling @ 99:
I believe in the saying that you find out about people's real character are when times are tough for them. When the public turned against Hillary look what happened. She turned into a sarcastic, negative victim instead of a leader. With this as a prelude, imagine what she would be like if she had a tough time as President. No thanks.
Sen Clinton just needs to look past all the stuff being thown at her... she is the best for the job... and thatincludes ignoring biased media... they are trying to infuence the vote because the screwed up in 2000 by getting Bsh elected!
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
Yes, and the daily conference calls from the Clinton camp distributing the daily talking points to the networks, as well as scolding and telling them they better watch what they say.
Shame on them.
GonzoD @ 100:
Any proof of any of the foregoing? Sounds like opinionated overgeneralization to me.
What book does Oprah have everyone reading this month?
The Tweety Meat Her is hardon the Clintons again, which is impotent to know one.
Proud2bHumble @ 108:
Lol
GonzoD @ 107:
Your point is?
Smitty @ 83:
I agree with you entirely. I know for sure that we are not the only ones seeing through what most of these main stream networks have been doing i.e. trying to manipulate the entire process.
I use to gag only when I switched channels to Fix News. This is not the case anymore. During this election cycle it seems almost like all the Networks have become Fix News clones. It's almost like the kind of media coverage you would expect from Russia or the former Soviet Union. What a tragedy!
bmw 528 @ 106:
CNN, MSNBC, Bill Press, Washington Post.
GonzoD @ 112:
Do provide a link so that we can judge the accuracy of your "opinion" for ourselves.
bmw 528 @ 110:
Exactly!
GonzoD @ 114:
Exactly what?
bmw 528 @ 113:
I second the request. Even if they ARE saying this, it could be coming directly from the Clinton camp during their daily bullying conference calls.
The clintons have always seemed to be at war with the press and
vice versa. Who's at fault I don't know but it is the truth. Queen
hillary hasn't done much to make peace with them. Its a little hard
to get fair coverage much less good when you are at war with them.
Here's a couple of interesting articles about it from a month or so before their latest whining began.
Clinton and the Press - Dec 20 2007
Hillary on the press bus Jan 2 2008
Hillary and the mean kids on the bus - Jan 3 2008
Gee....CNN & MSNBC I watch on the picture box, Bill Press - try Bill Press.com, Washington Post - do you have a newsstand in your area? I don't get all my info from the internet.
You're not going to listen to anything I say and the site monitor won't let me quote anyone's posts now. I remember this happening before.
I have obviously offended the site monitor, so now I will leave.
[GonzoD, no one has deleted any of your posts to my knowledge. And if you can't quote anyone's post, I'll hazard a guess and say you are using the latest version of MS IE. Site monitors have no control over scripting problems-Sitemonitor]
GDliberal @ 117:
Or this: www.paulloeb.org/articles/HillarySleaze.html
bmw 528 @ 97:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1713596,00.html
And your constant questionning of it doesn't mean it isn't true either.
GonzoD @ 118:
Nice try. No proof--no credibility. Your opinion is not the same thing as fact, unless your'e a Neocon. Good night and good luck.
The Media's role in a DEMOCRATIC and CIVILIZED society like our beloved AMERICA, is to provide FAIR, BALANCED AND OBJECTIVE REPORTING to it's citizens. IT SHOULD NOT BE AT WAR with any of it's citizens, be they elected officials or just one of the crowd.
foreigner @ 120:
So you and Emanuel Cleaver II are Clintonistas that toe the party line, sorry, that's pretty weak proof, unless you are looking for an Academy Award for drama queen. Or maybe the problem is that you guys think your opinion IS proof. Sorry, there is a difference.
If Cleaver or anyone has any valid proof of his allegations I'd like to see it. Given recent events from your less than honorable campaign, I don't take anything you say at face value.
bmw 528 @ 119:
That first linked piece is everything I thought, everything I knew, and yet it still gives me that sinking feeling that Hillary would be no better than Bush, maybe worse if that's even possible.
In response to 123
"So you and Emanuel Cleaver II are Clintonistas that toe the party line, sorry, that’s pretty weak proof, unless you are looking for an Academy Award for drama queen. Or maybe the problem is that you guys think your opinion IS proof. Sorry, there is a difference.
If Cleaver or anyone has any valid proof of his allegations I’d like to see it. Given recent events from your less than honorable campaign, I don’t take anything you say at face value."
It seems you are once again parroting the Obama supporter mantra that when offered with proof say that it is not good enough for your standards to believe.
Sorry, but here is no point offering you anything or discussing anything further with you. I offered two links. Don't like them?? Sorry! But they are from the gentleman in question from a conversation he had with Jackson Jr. unless you are now calling him untruthful as well? However I am not going to play games with you to meet "your standards of reporting you find acceptable".
And just in case you didn't read very well, I happen to not live in the US and therefore am not a "Clintonista" which is a disgusting name to call anyone who happens to support her. But then I don't like Obama-maniacs, either.
Hill's trying to steal Tejas.
"In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions."
http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html
Abby @ 122
Dream on. If you get a chance study a little history. Portions of the press have gone to war with politicians since before this country was started. While Washington was prez (supposedly unknown to him) J. Adams and T. Jefferson both bought/started "newspapers" with government funds to anonymously(?) fight each other. If you want to read about a real press war read up on Andrew Jackson. He blamed the press for the death of his wife. Honest Abe also bought a newspaper to fight for him too , before he became prez.
Always have been always will be that press war.
Bill Clinton was a negative in trying to trivialize the South Carolina primary because of a large black vote in that state.
But Hillary is losing the white vote, and that is because of the unspoken bull in the china shop, namely, her vote for war with Iraq, and her clumsy explanation, which is that she wished she knew then what she knows now, yet, it wasn't a mistake. Of course, if it wasn't a mistake, then why the need to know then what she know now?
That's what we call BS, or double talk, and I think that accounts for the Obama wins. Hillary gives all the appearance of stating her position at the moment depending on what the polls say, whereas, there seems to be more consistency with Obama.
President William Jefferson Clinton cannot hurt his wife's run for President. Senator Hillary Clinton can only benefit from her husband.
Only the corporate media boss lickers can hurt Hillary and Bill Clinton and they know it and so the do it. I pray and hope to God that Hillary Clinton is President so that she can take the corporations and media conglomerates to task with the bulk of American voters standing right beside her!
I hate CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the rest of the corporate pack hacks. They're all sick SOB's when it comes to opinion from these windbags I'd rather watch paint dry. At least watching paint dry as boring as it is, doesn't make me want to club the wall with a tire iron.
ezpz @ 42:
.
Here is a new ad for Obama:
ring ring ring
It’s 3:00 o’clock in the morning, and there’s a phone ringing in the White House.
A female voice answers: “Hello, this is President Clinton.”
A 2nd female voice giggles and then replies: “Yea, is Bill there?”
The commentator voice chimes in: “When the phone rings at the White House at 3 o’clock in the morning, the American public can be relieved to know that Bill has everything under control.”
GDliberal @ 127:
I am not dreaming at all. You miss my point. Anybody should be smart enough to know that in any society and in whatever ERA you will have certain sections of the media that will favour a particular candidate and attack the other. That is what Democracy is all about.
However the particular case I am referring to are for e.g. the major tv networks like MSNB and the others who PUBLICLY CLAIM their impartiality and objectivity. You cannot say at every advert interval that you are objective and impartial to your audience and then be SEEN TO GLARINGLY FAVOUR ONE CANDIDATE as opposed to the other. This is improper conduct in the profession and saying that this sort of thing has happened before in our history doesn't make it OK.
If we can't trust what the media is telling us then how have we developed as a society throughout the ages?
How can we raise our voices about the role of the media in other countries if we seen to be condoning this kind of behaviour?
Filthy Harry @ 91:
In this regard we really have no choice but to grudgingly admit that the Pugs assert time and time again the tactical GD advantage.Why this is so already occupies the minds and texts and tracts and books of the Liberal World's finest minds,so there is little point in getting into it at this juncture.These people are in it for the LONG TERM and we have not been anywhere near alert enough.As wrong headed and offensive as Right Wing ideology is to most of us,THEY believe in themselves without the slightest reservation.We must begin to come to terms with this depressing yet potentially cathartic knowledge;starting with the word LIBERAL.AS IN,I AM PROUD TO CALL MYSELF A LIBERAL.Its a start.
ezpz @ 124:
Quoting myself to edit --
My comment referred to the link posted by bmw 528@119, and NOT the "first linked piece".
This is the one that confirms what I know, but still gives me that sinking feeling:
http://www.paulloeb.org/articles/HillarySleaze.html
Thanks, bmw
Nicole,
I hate to agree with Tweety, but I think Bill did have a pretty negative impact on the race. Their campaigning between NH and SC really turned me off to both Clintons—and I was a stalwart supporter during Bill's impeachment days.
I was watching as closely as anyone with a laptop and that's how it looked to me.
Just my two cents.
It just does not matter. Either way she would be in the same position.
Many of my friends were really upset with the Clintons behavior during SC. I think that really hurt her. She really needed to stick to issues, principals, ideas, and solutions. In this race for the WH the candidate with the best solutions to identified problems and sticks to issues with credible solutions will win.
He's the lipstick on a 'pig'.
ohio progressive @ 18:
What? Calling someone out for plagiarism is kneecappingg? If that is what lost you then Clinton never had you. And the crimes of George Bush are not far worse than anything she or her campaign said? So then you believe she should be jailed? What pathetic rationale. Progressive, I think not!
And for that you would vote for Bush? That is absurd. And then to immediately suggest that she would steal the election another tactic worthy of a Republican. Closet Republican are ya? Cause until this election I thought only Republicans had such rabid hate for the Clintons. Sadly, I've learned different.
I don't think there's any doubt that BC's philandering, and then getting caught with ML has impacted his wife's campaign. I've been an ardent defender of the Clintons because I felt that what the rethuglicans did to them was far far worse. What Clinton did with ML was no one's business and didn't affect the way he carried out his presidential duties. However, it was unseemly, and the right wingers have continued to use it as a bludgeon, and they will continue to use it. I just don't have the desire to revisit all that. I know they'll go after Obama on every little thing, and they'll even make things up. But so far they haven't come up with anything of substance, and I think more people are wise to their ruthless tactics. BC, on the other hand, shot himself (and the Democratic Party) right in the foot with his womanizing. He know the right wingers were out to get him, and he gave them just what they needed.
Captain Kangaroo @ 10:
***This has been a cathartic election: for Democrats and the country to move on, past an endless holding action against withering attacks from billionaire-financed reactionary partisans. We have finally stopped refighting Vietnam in Iraq and in our elections. Dean showed us the way and Obama gave us the vehicle for change. The Reagan Revolution is dead, killed by war, fearmongering, arrogance, corruption, incompetence, and narrow-mindedness. Democrats can at last vote against a woman and a Clinton because there's a much better candidate, and we don't have to care what the utterly discredited wingnuts say. And we can finally nominate somebody we want and need, not another Republican-lite wimp who we think others will accept. I've waited 40 years for the heir to Gene McCarthy to arise, and it has finally happened. Rest easy up there, Clean Gene. The Bobby Kennedy party of special interests and Its All About Me (rather than about All of Us) is finally past, too.
kenoshaMarge @ 138:
Nono, let's not be silly.
Saying that JFK plagiarized "ask not what your country can do for you...."
or that Reagan plagiarized "mr gorbachev, tear down this wall"
or that any scripted politician is plagiarizing the words given to them to speak by the authors, is absurd, offensive, irrational and gutter politics. Or in a word, kneecapping.
It's called slimeballing, and that's all clinton has done since super tuesday. She does it as well as Rove and Bush, and that's what made me lose faith in her as a true voice of the people. She was never my first choice, but, after these many weeks of her slimeballing, I have come to believe that if she wins the nom, she'd be no better than mccain-- same empty meaningless political game, just from the left.
If you condone, support, take no offense in her mudslinging these past several weeks, then perhaps you ought take a hard look in the mirror at your own progressive bona fides, not be so quick to question that of others who disagree with you.
I have tremendous respect for the Clintons and what they did for this country. I have tremendous disrespect for the way they're trying to win this election.
And, for her to suggest that Michigan votes should be counted as cast, to me seems like something Rove would admire....considering of course that her name was the only one on the ballot.....but I suppose to you that's progressive.
whatever....
Spot-on analysis Nichole. I've had a feeling for a while the media needed a narrative for why things went sour for her, but I still can't get over how they made Bill the fall-guy. Newsflash guys: Bill only made the Jesse Jackson comment after they already got cleaned-out in SC. The black vote largely abandoned them not because of anything he said or did, but because Obama won Iowa and proved he was a viable candidate.
HRC didn't need any help from Bill to blow it, she's doing that job just fine. All by her self. Bill could only have helped her.
I personally found it ridiculous of her to claim leadership expertise, especially the "What are you going to do when the red pphoone rings" question. If she remained true to form in that situation, she'd do what she's always done: attempt to triangulate herself to a path of least resistance.
She a walking sack of insatiable power ambition in a human suit.
NoBuddy @ 128:
Hillary may have voted wrong on the war, but Obama and Hillary both had chance after chance to put the brakes on the war and chose to cave into the Bush administration. Neither one of them can claim that
they were totally opposed to the war or did anything particularlly to help end the war, even after 2006 when the dems. were in the majority.
I guess Obama can say that "I voted to fund the war after I voted aginst the war", now that's what I call consistancy, republicans would probably just call it flip-flop.
Chuck @ 1:
ummmm.... chuck... revisionist history much?... oh, wait... yer a rethuglican plant who hates hillary for no reason other than being told to... good boy... have a cookie...
kenoshaMarge @ 138:
Please realise that you are actually conversing with people who think this process is a beauty contest. It's the candidate or nothing. There is still a level of immaturity, that they have to grow out of.
funny how Hillary's campaign financing and management is so negatively framed when were it not for an unpredictable youth-driven phenomenon manifested by a previously unknown candidate, she would now be viewed as movement in her own right...
Paul @ 143:
...who in politics isn't?... truly... if you're going to be so crass in yer clinton smear, then you should be able to objectify your accusation and apply it to all the candidates... barrack included...
klunk @ 148:
But, that is what Klunk is for. Cmon guy do your duty!
Quiet Burp @ 26:
well then... i guess you'd rather believe a lie that makes you feel good than to accept the truth... they're all going to continue to accept money from lobbyists... and lobbying will continue to exist... that's life... suck it up... it'll be a lot easier if you do it now than to wake up from your honeymoon hangover to find your candidate's not quite so attractive without a euphoric boost...
for the record, you should be digging a little deeper into this issue and try to understand why this is so... and what the real problems are in lobbying and where they can be fixed...
Login or Register to post comments.