Does anybody seriously think that if Hillary's nominated that we won't spend most of the rest of the year raking through Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life? Read all about it.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
102 Responses to “Hill’s Electablity. Bill’s Proclivity.”
Huh. I kinda wondered about this on my own. My hunch is you’re probably right. However, Marc, my friend, get ready to duck. The crap about to be flung at you for even pondering it is bound to be crazy.
Frankly, this is the column that doesn’t even have to be written. Any Democrat who hasn’t had this issue rolling around in the back of their mind and isn’t weighing it as one of the aspects of the Clinton “legacy” that needs to be taken into account both in terms of the ultimate contours of the ’08 campaign and successful governance and control of the Dem’s message over the longer term is living in Lalaland or on the Banks of DeNial.
Marc’s friend Christopher Hitchens, back when he was a columnist for The Nation, made a compelling case that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist. (Of course I don’t think he made it IN The Nation, as that would presumably shock the sensibilities of dainty ladys like Patricia Williams and Katrina Van Den Heuvel.)
Will this matter be allowed to to become a matter of public speculation?
I’m sure reg the Hillary basher will suddenly come to her defense on that last point. I’ll say this. I know people who I trust who
A) vouch for what I’m saying aout Hill.
B) Know what local heiress Bill dates.
“Christopher Hitchens, back when he was a columnist for The Nation, made a compelling case that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist.”
Compelling? Let’s see. Tens of millions of dollars were spent by the taxpayers to investigate Bill’s liasons. And that’s not counting the millions spent by Scaife and others to try and ferret out former flames. But still no evidence, not a shred, nothing, zip, zilch, nada, showing Bill raped anyone.
Bob Williams is easily compelled, it seems. Many conservatives are, I suppose, which explains a lot.
More rational minds, however, can see that Bill isn’t the raping type.
Is there any celebrity, political or otherwise, who so obviously needs to be loved? The man wears this weakness on his sleeve and it seems beyond obvious that this, not the need to dominate or destroy, which motivates his sexual wanderlust.
Yes, in the years before Hitchens pioneered new techniques of fellatio on the Bush White House; his already sleazy attacks on the Clintons were buttressed with claims of other rape victims (sic) waiting in the wings. We’re still waiting, but Cooper does his bit to keep the game alive.
Hey Tubby, put down the nachos a sec and watch this. It’s call “Critical Thinking.”
Yes, I understand it’s getting late and Clinton’s numbers are still pretty good; it’s a short jaunt to the gutter for you anyway.
Your problem: getting down and dirty with the Clintons has hardly proved an effective strategy. Not in the Senate Races (where the supposedly politically disinterseted Jannita Broadrick wrote a whacked out letter to the editor, largely ignored by BOTH sides); not in the Impeachment farce. Chris Matthews statement was true, of course, but only half the story. He needed to add “and people like me made it all possible.”
Some on the right know this, and I suspect you do to. Rolling in the gutter is just too much fun. To illustrate this, could you please post your column, just before 9-11, celebrating the journalistic handling of the Gary Condut story?
When these ladies do finally materialize, the better have something more convincing than auditions for mud wrestling and Penthouse layouts (sounds like someones getting the lotion ready for that!
On the other hand, I’m willing to admit, it may not work out that way. The low road may still have it’s potholes, is all I’m saying.
“On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz responds to a series of attacks Bill Clinton has leveled at Barack Obama. Calls Clinton a liar and an embarrassment.”
Video: Ed Schultz: Bill Clinton is Lying
What Marc seems to ignore is that whomever the Dems nominate the GOP slime machine will greet with a free proctology exam guarenteed to be vicious and personal.
So Obama. What would they do there? Well above ground we know because if you go over to the HOTLINE a Republican strategest tells you. Polling data shows that most people think Barack lacks the “Experience” to be President. Matched against McCain – who seems the most likely these days – the meme would be that nice kid from Chicago with LESS THAN TWO YEARS vs the war hero with all that time pondering national security. And they’ll get a boost from the media thaat sees the Arizona Senator as a “maverick.”
Then ther’s the mid field. Obama plays footsie with lobbyists and slumlords. See Retzko. Sure there is defense but that’s just the point – it is defense. And Obamaa does take money from the FIRE brigrade (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) of Wall Streeters.
Finally there will be the deep cover campaign of the 527s and the viral EiMails and Talk radio. “Barack HUSSAIN Obama” is not what he seems. He was schooled in Madrassas, took the oath of office on the Koran and is really a Muslim. And that “Christian Church” he claims is really a way-out sect whose pastor praises Louis Farrakhan – a man Obama refuses to denounce.
Get the picture?
The GOP and its corporate cronies have too much money at stake to play fair. Add the fact that Barack is (now don’t go telling anybody this) Blaack and you see a mudslide that will make Malibu proud!
In short. Don’[t select your candidate on the grounds of electability or immunity from slime. It ain’t gonna happen.
“And that “Christian Church†he claims is really a way-out sect whose pastor praises Louis Farrakhan – a man Obama refuses to denounce.”
You’re a stranger to the truth here, richard. It’s disappointing and very depressing. My father was a minister in the United Church of Christ and it’s only “far-out” if you’re a hard-core fundamentalist hewing to Biblical literalism and opposed to gay relationships, which I assume you’re not. Oprah Winfrey is a member of that same South Side congregation. Nor is the much-brouhahed “afro-centrism” of the Trinity parish “way-out” but, in truth, both theologically, historically and morally consistent with the traditions of black Christianity – one of the most dynamic and relevant of American religious traditions ( ref: If you’ve never heard of the theologian Rev. James Cone, it’s a measure of not knowing what the hell you’re talking about in this sphere.) I doubt that you’d call the “liberation theology” of the Latin American Christian Left “far-out” – but that’s the analog – socially, intellectually, spiritually and politically.
But false charges and distortions are apparently par for the HillaryShill game:
I’ve posted Obama’s comments on disagreements with Rev. Wright and clear denunciation of Farrakhan on a Hillary/Obama thread at WitnessLA where a similiar charge was made.
Reg, you miss the point. “Truth” has nothing to do with it. Its what will be out there poising the debate. Or do you agree with Woody that the “Truth” is with the Swift Boaters who slimed Kerry in ’04? Woody’s stilll aasking for some secret records that will show that Kerry lied – his DD214s and @01 file ain’t enough for him.
Obama, Like Clinton and like Edwards, will be slimed. Its just that the muck will differ. And what does truth have to do with it?
rlc – I’ve got to assume that you were speaking in the GOP voice here as I look back at your comment. So I withdraw the direct criticism…but not dismay at your hysteria.
The key points are these – Obama’s a cleaner candidate than Clinton who doesn’t ALREADY have half of the country against him and the evidence is clear that he’s able to both motivate new Democratic voters better than Hillary – like youth who haven’t participated in great numbers – and that moderates and “independents” find him more appealing. Of course, if you think that folks who believe “madrassa” emails are even remotely likely to vote for Clinton, go for it. It’s a fools game and will do nothing to broaden the Democratic coalition, but if you’re in love with reruns…
Also, I never hear folks like you addressing the downticket issue – which I’d suggest Dems like Claire McCaskill and Jean Carnahan have a better grasp of than you do. The downticket issue – and Hillary’s drag on it by mobilizing red-state and purple region GOPers, which is an undeniable piece of the November ’08 picture should she be the nominee – is far more important to Dems actually getting a good health care plan through, etc. etc. etc. than wonky nattering about “mandates.” But some of our most “cogent” liberal thinkers are apparently too fucking dense and/or new to political strategy to get that…
rlc – yeah, I was writing my last comment when you responded. That just jumped out at me because I was brought up in that church and am also familiar with their encouraging overtly pro-gay and distinctly black-oriented churches as part of their “faith community.” (Andrew Young is also a UCC minister and the “black theology” guy I referred to, James Cone, is a Methodist and well-respected among non-fundamentalist theologians.)
One more thing. Pres. Bill Clinton is willing to do for his wife what Pres. George H.W. Bush was not willing to do for his son – associate himself directly with unhinged attacks against the primary opponent. In this case it’s Obama. In the Bush case it was John McCain.
The Clintons are veteran slimeballs. How could you expect anything less?
And again, I’m no Obama fan either – and its fair game to slam him on his closeness with finance capital – but seriously, its racist to expect him to make clear his differences with Farrakhan when we don’t ask Jewish politicians to make clear their differences with Settlers.
So I don’t get your point about Obama and Farrakhan. I mean, of course he’s going to get hacked at for his friend and pastor Rev. Wright’s having a respectul and warm relationship with Farrakhan (which is hardly surprising for two guys of about the same vintage who have been stomping the same turf over decades and which gives Wright a long view into the Nation of Islam local operation that no doubt includes a lot of programs that he considers positive in context.) Should Obama not clarify his differences with Wright on this and his clearcut disdain for much of Farrakhan’s indecent rhetoric over the years ? (My biggest problem with Farrakhan, frankly, is that he’s implicated morally if not “indictablly” in the murder of Malcom X. He was calling for it. Which is why I find decent folks like Rev. Wright giving him a pass – even forty-odd years later – quite creepy.)
Okay – great news for Sergio. My grandson’s due in town shortly for a week and I’ve got a load of precinct calls to make in preparation for The Second Coming of Christ (which designation, of course, could as easily apply to the grandkid as to Obama The Magnificent.)
I hav e no illusions about the Clintons Reg. Obviously they will be slimed well and truly as the GOP has been planning to run against her since 2000.
But I think our genial host implies that it would be benign against Edwards or Obama and that just a’int so.
Example – story on page A20 of today’s LAT: While in the Illinois Senate Obama mistakenly voted one way six times when he meaant to go the other way. No big deal but
Kevin Drumm of POLITICAL ANIMAL wondered outloud today just how long before that becomes a “sinister” item on Drudge?
I have the same problem with Farrakhan. But at the same time every big league Jewish politician is associated with someone who is associated with a settler wingnut. It is a mark of racism that Obama is forced to distance himself from guilt-by-association when whites with a few degrees from racists, Jews with a few degrees from settlers, Latinos with a few degrees from Anti-Castro terorists – get a pass.
And blaming Farrakhan for the Malcolm X hit is a half truth. Its known to this day that these guys were unwittingly also working for the Feds who wanted Malcolm dead.
There is some good news today – at least for people like me. A Zogby Tracking poll shows significant movement towards Edwards in South Carolina. One result shows him pulling ahead of Hillary. Obama has lost some Blaack Support and it has gravitated to Smilin’ John. Over at “Open Left” and MYDD the feeling is that the debate on Monday helped Edwards aas he appeared to be the “Grownup” in the room.
jc aand Reg. Go over to HUFFPO and “Off the Bus” and see the uneasiness in some quarters of the Jewish community over Barrack “Hussain” Obama. Unfair and overblown?
You bet.
But Bill’s sex life or Hillary’s legal career are simply well known and obvious vectors for the “Oppo” Research people.
Barack ain’t getting a free ride either. That is the nature of our politics.
(And I’m sure that if Edwards gets the nod or if a brokered convention turns to Gore they’d would be treaated equally rough!)
American Prospect (Harold Myerson, Ed.) article by Paul Waldman of Media Matters on “The Republican Democrat” (Guess who ?) and her calculated dishonesty.
That post on Obama is reprehensible, and a confirmation of at least some of Walt and Mearshiemer’s point (I agree with them domestically but not in re foreign policy). Obama has bent over backwards to “support Israel,” yet this poster – even when seeming to criticize rumour-mongering – is demanding that Obama alienate another one of his consituencies. Chicago has a big Palestinian American community.
I still think Bill and Hill will, in the end, campaign for Obama and do so effectively by, for example, drawing a clear comparison between the economy and geopolitical situation under Clinton versus the same under Bush.
I’m all for pointing to Hillary’s problems, but the rancor seems too counter-productive…
The Clintons’ treatment of Obama reminds of a cheap tag-team wrestling duo. While one is in the ring wrestling him, the other is making alot of noise on the sidelines distracting the referee with false claims of cheating.
When it looks as though Obama is getting the upper hand in the ring, The other joins in by popping him from the sidelines at every opportunity. If it looks like their loosing, watch both jump in the ring and double team him.
rlc – I’m pulling for your guy Edwards to keep “surging” and beat Hillary in SC. Obama’s gonna take the state, but the best secondary outcome would be for Edwards to come out ahead of Hillary and also gain some momentum for Super Tuesday.
“if you think that folks who believe “madrassa†emails are even remotely likely to vote for Clinton… ”
I know people who could be swayed by these e-mails and who might vote for Clinton. Sad to say but true.
I didn’t read the article Marc linked to, but it may help to remember that obsessive interest in Bill’s sex life cut both ways during his presidency. Half the time the oppositional slavering was so ugly it won him support (though I wouldn’t claim it helped him govern).
One of the points that too many seem to miss is that if Barack Obama is the nominee, Republicans will make the Harold Ford commercial in Tennessee look like an endorsement. In other words, Bill Clinton could have been a monk and Republicans would say anything about him.
I also find it interesting that the media have the time to discuss this and not, uh, issues?
I think Clark may be just weird enough. It reminds me of a crack I read somewhere: “Howard Dean is a perfectly sane man trying to act crazy. Wesley Clark is a lunatic trying to act normal.”
Evan Bayh’s dad Birch [actually, Evan Birch] Bayh was/is a true 60s/70s liberal. He had a great staff and a brilliant, tough-minded wife, Marvella, who died way too early. We used to wonder whether Evan had inherited his dad’s good-humored, easy-goingness or his mother’s aggressive, off-putting intelligence. It seems like the former, but he has been nothing more than a good-government bureaucrat as governor and a moderate Republican as senator. I really wonder what Birch thinks. He has never been a visible part of Evan’s campaigns. He is far more conservative than either Birch or Marvella, though I suppose in many ways it is because he has governed in that period of time that Obama correctly analyzes as one in which the Reagan Repubs controlled the discourse.
While Evan has the look and is well-positioned demographically, I think he would be a terrible choice for HRC. She needs new, yes, but she needs someone with vision. That’s not Evan.
Should HRC get the nomination, it’s looking like we shouldn’t be expecting a Gore/Cheney sort of activist VP, more of a caretaker/gardener/advance man, with First Gentleman Bill handling the heavier lifting.
One last thing. Jcummings early on in this thread made yet another reference to HRC’s “sapphic proclivities.” I don’t think this is appropriate. Look, she has always surrounded herself with women who show a deep commitment to her. Some of them are pretty hot. Or at least they were when I was around her. That included some late nights out when bad liquor was flowing, the sort of situation where forbidden romance was likely to bloom, if the potential was there. I don’t believe it ever did. I thought then and have continued to believe that Hillary was very much in love with Bill, and not a lesbian. But even if she were, it is not a matter of public concern.
Actually, having watched the Logo debate I think that all 3 Dem candidates are absolutely supportive of gay’s rights to equal legal recognition of their relationships and deserve credit. I am in no way shape or form interested in either Clinton’s sex life – which is a good reason not to vote for Hillary because this stuff will stay on the table as long as they are sitting at the head of it. Eight years of this kind of crap – increasingly boring and with vast potential for creating a Beltway Soap Opera if Bill gets caught with floozy (certainly possible-to-likely) that would turn our politics into another Clinton Carnival Sideshow. A very bad dream that I don’t want to wake up in the middle of…
I think that the Democratic contenders should be proud of their positions on homosexuals (missionary not being one) and tell all the voters the details of what they could expect from a Democratic administration.
“Even as they expect to support whichever Democrat gets the presidential nomination, many activists are disappointed that the three leading contenders rarely mention gay-rights topics unless responding to a question.
“‘They don’t want to broach civil unions, marriage, equalizing benefits for same-sex couples,’ said Jennifer Chrisler, head of the Family Equality Council, which supports gay and lesbian families.
“‘They’ve merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America,’ Ryan-Vollmar wrote. ‘That’s not leadership, it’s poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple.’”
This reminds me of McCain and reading somewhere that he still wakes up drenched in sweat, having nightmares of all those bombs he dropped killing innocent women and children. Talk about a lunatic and a baby killer…
“Duane Jones…said he rented six rooms to the Clinton campaign….(for the ) Iowa caucuses. Jones said when he went into the building after the campaign staff had cleared out, he discovered garbage, spoiled food, holes that had been drilled in the walls to run phone lines without his authorization, and stains on the carpet that will require some of the carpeting to be replaced.”
If Jones had checked with the Clinton’s last landord, he would have found that they trashed the place and stole property from there. Address? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Lets see. Remember all those stories about the Clintonistas trashing the West Wing before they left for the Bushies? All False of course – the product of
Karl Riove’s imagination.
But some yo-yo in Clinton Iowa (of all places) says they made a mess and Woddy buys it. Hey maybe that’s why people use his accounting services – he buys any deductions?
And tell you what woody. When Bush comes clean about his cocaine use and Laura admits to that Vehicular manslaughter charge (DUI related), then, maybe, I’ll consider your “Evidence” on Vince Foster that $70 million and Ken Starr missed!
You know I really am getting sick of having to spend all my time hear defending the Clintons from attacks from mouth breathers. An I’m really tired of having to point out the really scurilous nature of the attacks on Hillary. I’m beginning to side with Katha Pllit of the NATION, no fan of the Clinton’s policies, whon wrote that these attack just might make her vote for Hil to get back at these jackals.
Are Woody’s references to “trailer trash” a sign that the Rove wing of the GOP is not only dead, but mummified? The best thing they can do is recycle the very worst ad hominem cliches about Clinton, cliches that didn’t prevent him from winning the White House twice.
Or it could be that Woody’s just dumber than the average Rove Republican…
Should Hillary win, I’d hope she’d pick Obama as her VP. Barring that, Edwards would be fine. Better would be Bloomberg.
Jcummings–while I understand the argument for “outing” closet gays who vote against what is viewed as the gay community’s interest, I don’t think it justifies making a candidate’s sex life part of the campaign. And even if it did, it does not justify vague rumor-mongering, even where you say you know people who know people who know the truth.
As for the “fair game” comment, you seem to be inhabited by the spirit of that old Texas sheriff LBJ talked about who told his cronies he was going to charge his opponent as a pigf***er. When his buddy said, “you know ol’ Vern ain’t no pigf***er,” the sherf responded, “well, maybe he is and maybe he ain’t, but I want to here the sumbitch deny it.”
Jc, aren’t you really dying to hear Hillary deny it?
RLC… u know u make me laugh. Defending the Clintons is a choice, not something hereditary. You wish to do so, fine. But you btter take your supplments because as long as they are on the scene, they’re gonna be attacked. Some of it is undeserved, of course. But basically, they are both walking dirt bags.. and dirt bags attract dirt.
All I have to say is that after 8 yers of the Bush disaster, after the generational changeover we’re experiencing, the massive and rampant corruption of the system itselg, the gilded age glorification of excess and indifference, the truly frightening economic and global challeneges that haunt our future, it’s really really friggin’ sad that the best we wind up doing is re-hiring a couple of well-known hucksters who are absolutely guaranteed to defend the status quo. Take ur vitamins Richard, because I herevy predict that if the Clintons return, 3-4-5 years down the road ur gonna be confronted with an absolutely outraged and disilluioned Millenium Generation who will make the 60′s baby boomers look like somnolents.
I know from godo authority what famous Toronto heiress was fucking around with Bill Clinton. From what I know, there’s is a marriage based on love, and a recognition that both have different sexual tastes. Its an open secret that Hillary is a dyke.
Pardon my offensive language. Back from Shabbat dinner with observant relatives. Had a little wine.
I understand the notion that one shouldn’t want the Clintons sex lives to be in the campaign. They will be, whether we like it or not. And if it sinks them, so be it.
rlc: “What Marc seems to ignore is that whomever the Dems nominate the GOP slime machine will greet with a free proctology exam guarenteed to be vicious and personal.”
Richard, and the democratic slime machine? What do you think they will be doing? Sitting on their laurels?
Tell me: Is the phrase “inner-city slum lord” race-baiting or not? Clinonites are starting to sound like the Republicans when they were trying to explain away Trent Lott.
I’ll add something, of all the Democraps running, the only one worth a damn (at least to this conservative’s point of view) is Obama. At least he seems honest enough. We know damn good and well that Edwards is a shyster who channels baby’s with CP and hillary and bill are crooked assholes from the get go.
If Obama wins, I won’t be upset at all. I’ll campaign against him likely (depending on who the Repubs nominate), but if they nominate a jerk then I’m either gonna sit out the election or vote for a Democrat the third time in my life.
And for you folk that think the Swiftboaters lied about kerry, you know that T Boone Pickens is offering $1 million for proof that the Swifboaters lied, why don’t you go collect it? In fact, why doesn’t Kerry go collect it? The offer still stands and has for at least two months… surely you can PROVE one lie in that time… can’t you?
“Tell me: Is the phrase “inner-city slum lord†race-baiting or not?”
No, it isn’t. Has nothing to do with race.
The Clintons are imperfect, to be sure, but fine people, as politicians go.
Bill did a very, very good job of fending off the kind of disasters we’ve seen under Bush. No, he didn’t bring a liberal nirvana. Yes, he compromised and “triangulated,” but to his credit, he did so out of a calculation that it was necessary for political survival.
Unfortunately, too many liberals like Marc have no other mode than high dudgeon. All they know how to do is complain and insult and so, instead of looking at Clinton’s overall performance UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, they focus on the failures and pretend that hyperbolic condemnation is some kind of moral position.
Marc writes:
“ it’s really really friggin’ sad that the best we wind up doing is re-hiring a couple of well-known hucksters who are absolutely guaranteed to defend the status quo.”
One of Marc’s problems is that he’s in denial about the extent of the right’s political power in America.
The fusion of pharmaceutical, oil, media and military industrial money with fundamentalist Christianity and nativism has produced a very, very powerful political faction. In number, it is short of a majority, but in political power, it remains unrivaled.
The massive failure in Iraq, coupled with the Bush recessions, is digging some cracks in the GOP power bloc, but that is most likely temporary. Eventually, the Iraq disaster will be forgotten and the economy will bounce back and the corporate media white Christian power axis will once again have the potential to dominate.
Liberals need to accept that change must be gradual. Nothing we can do is going to crush the GOP machine overnight, or even during a single presidency. This will take decades, and we will only get there with patience and a decent respect for incomplete victories.
The kind of childish ranting calling Clintons “dirtbags” and so forth does nothing to help sustain the kinds of incremental gains liberals can win in a country that is so deeply divided ideologically.
Bambi Bill: “She (his wife Hillary) and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”
But Obama has illusions about the GOP slime machine…and is too close to conservatives…
The Closet McCain
Psst … he’s not really a conservative.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 3:33 PM ET
An Interesting Train Ride
by: Mike Lux
Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM EST
So I went up to NYC a couple of days ago for some meetings, and I was coming back yesterday on Amtrak. Sitting behind me I hear some guy coming up and greeting another guy, sitting behind me. I don’t know who it is because they were sitting behind me, but I can hear the conversation. The one guy is being kind of a suck-up, and they start talking about being in conservative politics and that they need to deal with McCain… (continues)
“The Clinton strategy of marginalising Barack Obama as an African-American candidate showed signs of success on the eve of today’s Democratic primary in South Carolina.”
People should look at Obama the same as the townspeople in Blazing Saddles. The new sheriff is saving us, and his color doesn’t matter. Even Mongo respected him.
rlc, I don’t “buy any deductions.” My client’s aren’t crooks and neither am I. It’s one thing to put down something to be questoned on Marc’s site versus putting it on a tax form going to the IRS. You would know if you ever filed.
Marc, did YOU READ Katha Pollit? Do you think she’s a “Hereditary” defender of the Clintons? Yet she says that the invective against Hillary is of such a level that its making her think she should vote for Clinton just to show the critics up. Whjat does that tell you? Katha has sold out? Like Gloria Steinham? Like Patricia Williams? Like Jane Hamsher? I could go on but my point is simple, if you want to criticize her policy positions then fine.
I for one think that she is way too bellicose – she has refused to acknowlege that her vote to authorize the use of force was a mistake and she compounded that by saying “Yes” to Kyl-Lieberman. She supported the Bankruptcy bill and her Health care plan with its Individual Mandate is a bonanza for the insurance industry which has generously supported her campaign. And, yes, she has a lot of retreads from Bill’s foreign policy apparat around her that suggest a paucity of new ideas and she gets lots from the Rubin/Summers/Wall St. crowd which suggests little chance that her trade policy would be different.
For all those reasons I back Edwards.
(I would note here that Obama also gets lots of dough from Wall Street and the FIRE crowd. He and GHillary have the same record on funding the war – that is when he deigns to show up and vote. And his stimulus plan is, as noted on HUFFPO yesterday is quite modest and does nothing to aid those threatened with foreclosure. I might add that his principal advisors on the economy come from the U. of Chicago which ought to give pause to anyone familiar with the division of social sciences there and Economics in particular.)
(Oh Dear, now I’ll have Reg on my ass again!)
So, yes, I’m not under any illusions about Hillary. And I can and do recognize her deficiencies. See my postings over the last two years. But, frankly, you dismissal of her and her husband seem far more personal and petty than policy disagreements. Can it be that in the end your distaste boils down to the fact that they won elective office and you’re one of those on the left that sees any success in “corrupt” Elective politics as a sign of deviltry. Plus the comments that border on sexism – see Pollit et.al. above.
Poor Woody. He can defame anyone but, like a wounded child, is offended when someone turns his invective around and suggests he look at his own practices. All I have to say is:
Listener, that “train ride” story you linked about overhearing the opponents may have as much truth to it as Bill Clinton walking with a phalanx of secret service agents with reporters all around and overhearing a conversation regarding consipiracy on the campaign trail from some by-standers. On rlc, I left off nose-picking.
Amongst all of the various reasons not to want the Clinton’s back in office (and that list is already long), I’d like us to be a lot more suspicious of political dynasties. The last one hasn’t worked out so well for us. I’m not saying that Bush and Hilary are at all alike (well at least not that much alike). It shouldn’t be a formal rule, but rather a tradition enforced by the electorate, we should almost automatically reject any candidate for president who had a husband, wife, father, brother, whatever, who was president within the last 20 years. Dynasties like that are inherently anti-democratic. I’m still pissed about the Adamses.
“Character” is only an issue because it makes for easy journalism.
It’s much harder to write about results. What were the results of the Clinton presidency?
What was the result of the Reagan presidency?
These are the issues and to the extent that we focus on “character” of politicians, we’re navel-gazing in a way that does very much to destroy rational politics.
Let’s just assume that superlative character exludes one from participation in politics. People of the highest morals and character will never succeed in a democracy–other than by sheer, exceptional, rare luck–because democracy descends to the lowest common denominator. The McDonald’s effect.
McDonald’s is the world’s biggest restaurant chain, yet no one thinks their hamburgers are any good. We could sit here all day and come up with thousands of reasons McDonald’s food is sub-par. But at some point, we’d have to concede the reality that people vote with their wallets, and McDonald’s is what we get.
Bill Clinton is a Big Mac. You don’t have to love it, but you will eat it.
If Obama wins, I’ll bet euros to dollars he’ll end up making compromises on the liberal agenda that are similar in impact to the one’s Clinton made and that he will have successes in limiting the politics of nativism and chauvinism, just as Clinton did.
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”
This was in response to a question about Obama saying it “took two people to beat him.” Jackson had not been mentioned.
Boy, I can’t understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as “the black candidate.”
“incidentally, no one’s arguing that Obama won’t be “slimed†– we just didn’t expect it to start from the Clinton machine….”
Yeah, Hillary Clinton has always been a clean fighter….hard to imagine…the same lady who introduced James Carville and Dick Morris (a man so “slimy” that he gives mere slime a bad name…) to her husband and the public.
Maybe we all need to pass around a coin bucket to collect for you, Reg, so that you may use the proceeds to buy a clue.
By the way, and maybe I am semi-alone here, but I won’t feel sorry for either Bill or Hillary – or the Democratic Party and its supporters – if these salacious (but always borish) “new allegations of infidelity” sink her candidacy for President after she gets the nomination. In fact, my guess is that her team has already been working the phones for months to find dirt on McCain, Romney, etc. Bill and Hillary Clinton have not only never proven themselves to be above slinging mud at political foes, they actually wrote the book on it.
There seems to be a rather inflamed double standard when it comes to the Clintons and race.
If a pundit points out that Obama is attracting black voters, he’s making an observation and one that few people would challenge.
When Clinton makes the same observations, he’s accused of race-baiting.
When pundits question whether white Americans will vote en masse for a black man–even though Obama’s just as white as he is black–we know they are asking a valid, relevant question.
Allow me to digress:
The allegation of racism has become virtually meaningless in America anyway. If a slight can be implied or inferred from a comment, it will be, regardless of the speaker’s intent.
The Don Imus imbroglio is a perfect example. Here the guy cracks a joke–albeit a lame one–and suddenly he’s accused of the same category of offense as someone who advocates apartheid. Worse, you’ve got people like Rush Limbaugh, who, because they are careful to use coded language, get away with advocating public policies aimed directly at keeping ethnic minorities subjugated. But because he’s never used the word “ho” to describe a black person, he still has his job.
Actually, Rush did lose one job as a football announcer for making a comment that was interepreted at racist. Though in this case I’d have to say that it actually did review a kind of racial paranoia that is disconcerting, but certainly not nearly as bigoted as the kind of public and foreign policies he advocates.
The Clintons have no record whatsoever of being bad to Afro-Americans in their personal or political life. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that either Hillary or Bill want to do harm to Afro-Americans or any other minority–with the possible exception of Muslims.
So how can we then accuse Bill of playing race cards against Obama? It’s a simple fact that Afro-American voters are more likely to vote for another Afro-American. There is nothing slimey or underhanded in any way about stating that, or about stating that this poses a challenge for white candidates and may also have an effect on the general election.
It will be a huge mistake of both the Clintons don’t campaign vigorously all the way through to Nov. 2008, whether or not Hillary wins the nomination.
Interesting fact about the Clintons and the black vote – In 1992 Bill Clinton won 82 percent of the black vote in the general election. In Nov. 1988 Michael Dukakis had won 89 percent of the black vote. I think this notion that black folks all love Bill Clinton, aside from highly-publicized, opportunistic associations and an FOB aura on the part of certain AfAm celebrities, increasingly out-of-touch elders and wealthy “VIPs” – over and above his having been the only Democrat to actually win the presidency in the last quarter century and his presiding over relative prosperity with a fair degree of competence – is a bit of bamboozlement that the Clintons themselves took for granted at their peril. They alsos proved themselves “generous” in dispensing “street money” to black churches to help “get out the vote.” Unfortunately, this is standard practice among old-school Dems and it has been considered being effective. The Obama campaign, to their credit, decided not to compete with the Clintons at that “street” level but attempted to elevate their appeal to voters across the board – and appear to have a good chance of succeeding.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Huh. I kinda wondered about this on my own. My hunch is you’re probably right. However, Marc, my friend, get ready to duck. The crap about to be flung at you for even pondering it is bound to be crazy.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Frankly, this is the column that doesn’t even have to be written. Any Democrat who hasn’t had this issue rolling around in the back of their mind and isn’t weighing it as one of the aspects of the Clinton “legacy” that needs to be taken into account both in terms of the ultimate contours of the ’08 campaign and successful governance and control of the Dem’s message over the longer term is living in Lalaland or on the Banks of DeNial.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:24 am
What about Hillary’s well known sapphic proclivities?
January 24th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Marc’s friend Christopher Hitchens, back when he was a columnist for The Nation, made a compelling case that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist. (Of course I don’t think he made it IN The Nation, as that would presumably shock the sensibilities of dainty ladys like Patricia Williams and Katrina Van Den Heuvel.)
Will this matter be allowed to to become a matter of public speculation?
January 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I’m sure reg the Hillary basher will suddenly come to her defense on that last point. I’ll say this. I know people who I trust who
A) vouch for what I’m saying aout Hill.
B) Know what local heiress Bill dates.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Why would the electorate be thinking of this? Afterall, all you folk said it was “only about sex.”
January 24th, 2008 at 7:13 am
“Christopher Hitchens, back when he was a columnist for The Nation, made a compelling case that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist.”
Compelling? Let’s see. Tens of millions of dollars were spent by the taxpayers to investigate Bill’s liasons. And that’s not counting the millions spent by Scaife and others to try and ferret out former flames. But still no evidence, not a shred, nothing, zip, zilch, nada, showing Bill raped anyone.
Bob Williams is easily compelled, it seems. Many conservatives are, I suppose, which explains a lot.
More rational minds, however, can see that Bill isn’t the raping type.
Is there any celebrity, political or otherwise, who so obviously needs to be loved? The man wears this weakness on his sleeve and it seems beyond obvious that this, not the need to dominate or destroy, which motivates his sexual wanderlust.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:22 am
“Liasons?” How charming.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:55 am
>I know people who I trust who
A) vouch for what I’m saying aout Hill.
just a word to the wise, dems-if someone happens to “leak” pictures to Bob Guccione, this could be a positive
January 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Pres. Reagan insisted on everyone wearing a suit while in the Oval Office. Clinton defiled that same office.
I’ve had enough of the Clinton’s in the White House. Anyway, they didn’t return everything that they stole when they moved out.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Yes, in the years before Hitchens pioneered new techniques of fellatio on the Bush White House; his already sleazy attacks on the Clintons were buttressed with claims of other rape victims (sic) waiting in the wings. We’re still waiting, but Cooper does his bit to keep the game alive.
Hey Tubby, put down the nachos a sec and watch this. It’s call “Critical Thinking.”
Yes, I understand it’s getting late and Clinton’s numbers are still pretty good; it’s a short jaunt to the gutter for you anyway.
Your problem: getting down and dirty with the Clintons has hardly proved an effective strategy. Not in the Senate Races (where the supposedly politically disinterseted Jannita Broadrick wrote a whacked out letter to the editor, largely ignored by BOTH sides); not in the Impeachment farce. Chris Matthews statement was true, of course, but only half the story. He needed to add “and people like me made it all possible.”
Some on the right know this, and I suspect you do to. Rolling in the gutter is just too much fun. To illustrate this, could you please post your column, just before 9-11, celebrating the journalistic handling of the Gary Condut story?
When these ladies do finally materialize, the better have something more convincing than auditions for mud wrestling and Penthouse layouts (sounds like someones getting the lotion ready for that!
On the other hand, I’m willing to admit, it may not work out that way. The low road may still have it’s potholes, is all I’m saying.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz responds to a series of attacks Bill Clinton has leveled at Barack Obama. Calls Clinton a liar and an embarrassment.”
Video: Ed Schultz: Bill Clinton is Lying
January 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am
What Marc seems to ignore is that whomever the Dems nominate the GOP slime machine will greet with a free proctology exam guarenteed to be vicious and personal.
So Obama. What would they do there? Well above ground we know because if you go over to the HOTLINE a Republican strategest tells you. Polling data shows that most people think Barack lacks the “Experience” to be President. Matched against McCain – who seems the most likely these days – the meme would be that nice kid from Chicago with LESS THAN TWO YEARS vs the war hero with all that time pondering national security. And they’ll get a boost from the media thaat sees the Arizona Senator as a “maverick.”
Then ther’s the mid field. Obama plays footsie with lobbyists and slumlords. See Retzko. Sure there is defense but that’s just the point – it is defense. And Obamaa does take money from the FIRE brigrade (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) of Wall Streeters.
Finally there will be the deep cover campaign of the 527s and the viral EiMails and Talk radio. “Barack HUSSAIN Obama” is not what he seems. He was schooled in Madrassas, took the oath of office on the Koran and is really a Muslim. And that “Christian Church” he claims is really a way-out sect whose pastor praises Louis Farrakhan – a man Obama refuses to denounce.
Get the picture?
The GOP and its corporate cronies have too much money at stake to play fair. Add the fact that Barack is (now don’t go telling anybody this) Blaack and you see a mudslide that will make Malibu proud!
In short. Don’[t select your candidate on the grounds of electability or immunity from slime. It ain’t gonna happen.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“And that “Christian Church†he claims is really a way-out sect whose pastor praises Louis Farrakhan – a man Obama refuses to denounce.”
You’re a stranger to the truth here, richard. It’s disappointing and very depressing. My father was a minister in the United Church of Christ and it’s only “far-out” if you’re a hard-core fundamentalist hewing to Biblical literalism and opposed to gay relationships, which I assume you’re not. Oprah Winfrey is a member of that same South Side congregation. Nor is the much-brouhahed “afro-centrism” of the Trinity parish “way-out” but, in truth, both theologically, historically and morally consistent with the traditions of black Christianity – one of the most dynamic and relevant of American religious traditions ( ref: If you’ve never heard of the theologian Rev. James Cone, it’s a measure of not knowing what the hell you’re talking about in this sphere.) I doubt that you’d call the “liberation theology” of the Latin American Christian Left “far-out” – but that’s the analog – socially, intellectually, spiritually and politically.
But false charges and distortions are apparently par for the HillaryShill game:
http://tinyurl.com/2c3f3g
January 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I’ve posted Obama’s comments on disagreements with Rev. Wright and clear denunciation of Farrakhan on a Hillary/Obama thread at WitnessLA where a similiar charge was made.
I’m really getting tired of this crap…
January 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Reg, you miss the point. “Truth” has nothing to do with it. Its what will be out there poising the debate. Or do you agree with Woody that the “Truth” is with the Swift Boaters who slimed Kerry in ’04? Woody’s stilll aasking for some secret records that will show that Kerry lied – his DD214s and @01 file ain’t enough for him.
Obama, Like Clinton and like Edwards, will be slimed. Its just that the muck will differ. And what does truth have to do with it?
January 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am
rlc, that’s right. Kerry promised to sign Form 180 to completely open his miliary records, and he hasn’t after two years. Why not?
January 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
rlc – I’ve got to assume that you were speaking in the GOP voice here as I look back at your comment. So I withdraw the direct criticism…but not dismay at your hysteria.
The key points are these – Obama’s a cleaner candidate than Clinton who doesn’t ALREADY have half of the country against him and the evidence is clear that he’s able to both motivate new Democratic voters better than Hillary – like youth who haven’t participated in great numbers – and that moderates and “independents” find him more appealing. Of course, if you think that folks who believe “madrassa” emails are even remotely likely to vote for Clinton, go for it. It’s a fools game and will do nothing to broaden the Democratic coalition, but if you’re in love with reruns…
Also, I never hear folks like you addressing the downticket issue – which I’d suggest Dems like Claire McCaskill and Jean Carnahan have a better grasp of than you do. The downticket issue – and Hillary’s drag on it by mobilizing red-state and purple region GOPers, which is an undeniable piece of the November ’08 picture should she be the nominee – is far more important to Dems actually getting a good health care plan through, etc. etc. etc. than wonky nattering about “mandates.” But some of our most “cogent” liberal thinkers are apparently too fucking dense and/or new to political strategy to get that…
January 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
rlc – yeah, I was writing my last comment when you responded. That just jumped out at me because I was brought up in that church and am also familiar with their encouraging overtly pro-gay and distinctly black-oriented churches as part of their “faith community.” (Andrew Young is also a UCC minister and the “black theology” guy I referred to, James Cone, is a Methodist and well-respected among non-fundamentalist theologians.)
January 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Incidentally, no one’s arguing that Obama won’t be “slimed” – we just didn’t expect it to start from the Clinton machine….
January 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
One more thing. Pres. Bill Clinton is willing to do for his wife what Pres. George H.W. Bush was not willing to do for his son – associate himself directly with unhinged attacks against the primary opponent. In this case it’s Obama. In the Bush case it was John McCain.
More honor in the House of Bush ? Yuck…
January 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
reg -
The Clintons are veteran slimeballs. How could you expect anything less?
And again, I’m no Obama fan either – and its fair game to slam him on his closeness with finance capital – but seriously, its racist to expect him to make clear his differences with Farrakhan when we don’t ask Jewish politicians to make clear their differences with Settlers.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
So I don’t get your point about Obama and Farrakhan. I mean, of course he’s going to get hacked at for his friend and pastor Rev. Wright’s having a respectul and warm relationship with Farrakhan (which is hardly surprising for two guys of about the same vintage who have been stomping the same turf over decades and which gives Wright a long view into the Nation of Islam local operation that no doubt includes a lot of programs that he considers positive in context.) Should Obama not clarify his differences with Wright on this and his clearcut disdain for much of Farrakhan’s indecent rhetoric over the years ? (My biggest problem with Farrakhan, frankly, is that he’s implicated morally if not “indictablly” in the murder of Malcom X. He was calling for it. Which is why I find decent folks like Rev. Wright giving him a pass – even forty-odd years later – quite creepy.)
January 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Okay – great news for Sergio. My grandson’s due in town shortly for a week and I’ve got a load of precinct calls to make in preparation for The Second Coming of Christ (which designation, of course, could as easily apply to the grandkid as to Obama The Magnificent.)
Gotta give this alleged wanking a rest…
January 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I hav e no illusions about the Clintons Reg. Obviously they will be slimed well and truly as the GOP has been planning to run against her since 2000.
But I think our genial host implies that it would be benign against Edwards or Obama and that just a’int so.
Example – story on page A20 of today’s LAT: While in the Illinois Senate Obama mistakenly voted one way six times when he meaant to go the other way. No big deal but
Kevin Drumm of POLITICAL ANIMAL wondered outloud today just how long before that becomes a “sinister” item on Drudge?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I have the same problem with Farrakhan. But at the same time every big league Jewish politician is associated with someone who is associated with a settler wingnut. It is a mark of racism that Obama is forced to distance himself from guilt-by-association when whites with a few degrees from racists, Jews with a few degrees from settlers, Latinos with a few degrees from Anti-Castro terorists – get a pass.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
And blaming Farrakhan for the Malcolm X hit is a half truth. Its known to this day that these guys were unwittingly also working for the Feds who wanted Malcolm dead.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
There is some good news today – at least for people like me. A Zogby Tracking poll shows significant movement towards Edwards in South Carolina. One result shows him pulling ahead of Hillary. Obama has lost some Blaack Support and it has gravitated to Smilin’ John. Over at “Open Left” and MYDD the feeling is that the debate on Monday helped Edwards aas he appeared to be the “Grownup” in the room.
I’ll take any sign of life that I can get!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn01242008.html
January 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
jc aand Reg. Go over to HUFFPO and “Off the Bus” and see the uneasiness in some quarters of the Jewish community over Barrack “Hussain” Obama. Unfair and overblown?
You bet.
But Bill’s sex life or Hillary’s legal career are simply well known and obvious vectors for the “Oppo” Research people.
Barack ain’t getting a free ride either. That is the nature of our politics.
(And I’m sure that if Edwards gets the nod or if a brokered convention turns to Gore they’d would be treaated equally rough!)
January 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
One quicky -
American Prospect (Harold Myerson, Ed.) article by Paul Waldman of Media Matters on “The Republican Democrat” (Guess who ?) and her calculated dishonesty.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ooops. Below…
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_democrat
January 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
That post on Obama is reprehensible, and a confirmation of at least some of Walt and Mearshiemer’s point (I agree with them domestically but not in re foreign policy). Obama has bent over backwards to “support Israel,” yet this poster – even when seeming to criticize rumour-mongering – is demanding that Obama alienate another one of his consituencies. Chicago has a big Palestinian American community.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I still think Bill and Hill will, in the end, campaign for Obama and do so effectively by, for example, drawing a clear comparison between the economy and geopolitical situation under Clinton versus the same under Bush.
I’m all for pointing to Hillary’s problems, but the rancor seems too counter-productive…
January 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/younge
January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
[...] Hill’s Electablity. Bill’s Proclivity. [...]
January 24th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The Clintons’ treatment of Obama reminds of a cheap tag-team wrestling duo. While one is in the ring wrestling him, the other is making alot of noise on the sidelines distracting the referee with false claims of cheating.
When it looks as though Obama is getting the upper hand in the ring, The other joins in by popping him from the sidelines at every opportunity. If it looks like their loosing, watch both jump in the ring and double team him.
Neither have any sense of decency or shame.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Jim R: The Clintons’ treatment of Obama reminds of a cheap tag-team wrestling duo.
Great analogy. Never thought about it, but that’s an accurate take. We need to give the Clinton’s wrestling names.
* *
Whatever happened to Michael Balter who used to comment here? He had pretty strong views on the Iraq War and the views of Obama and Rodham-Clinton.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:34 am
rlc – I’m pulling for your guy Edwards to keep “surging” and beat Hillary in SC. Obama’s gonna take the state, but the best secondary outcome would be for Edwards to come out ahead of Hillary and also gain some momentum for Super Tuesday.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“if you think that folks who believe “madrassa†emails are even remotely likely to vote for Clinton… ”
I know people who could be swayed by these e-mails and who might vote for Clinton. Sad to say but true.
I didn’t read the article Marc linked to, but it may help to remember that obsessive interest in Bill’s sex life cut both ways during his presidency. Half the time the oppositional slavering was so ugly it won him support (though I wouldn’t claim it helped him govern).
January 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
One of the points that too many seem to miss is that if Barack Obama is the nominee, Republicans will make the Harold Ford commercial in Tennessee look like an endorsement. In other words, Bill Clinton could have been a monk and Republicans would say anything about him.
I also find it interesting that the media have the time to discuss this and not, uh, issues?
January 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Reg, props to your guy doing the “Top Ten” on Letterman last night!
January 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Who in their right mind would accept the vice-presidency from the Clintons? This is a serious question.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Plenty of people. Just off the top of my head:
Bill Richardson
Wes Clark
Evan Bayh
January 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I think Clark may be just weird enough. It reminds me of a crack I read somewhere: “Howard Dean is a perfectly sane man trying to act crazy. Wesley Clark is a lunatic trying to act normal.”
January 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
God spare us from Evan Bayh – that would ratify the DLCism of the Clinton camp. (His father was twice the man, etc. etc.)
January 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Evan Bayh’s dad Birch [actually, Evan Birch] Bayh was/is a true 60s/70s liberal. He had a great staff and a brilliant, tough-minded wife, Marvella, who died way too early. We used to wonder whether Evan had inherited his dad’s good-humored, easy-goingness or his mother’s aggressive, off-putting intelligence. It seems like the former, but he has been nothing more than a good-government bureaucrat as governor and a moderate Republican as senator. I really wonder what Birch thinks. He has never been a visible part of Evan’s campaigns. He is far more conservative than either Birch or Marvella, though I suppose in many ways it is because he has governed in that period of time that Obama correctly analyzes as one in which the Reagan Repubs controlled the discourse.
While Evan has the look and is well-positioned demographically, I think he would be a terrible choice for HRC. She needs new, yes, but she needs someone with vision. That’s not Evan.
Should HRC get the nomination, it’s looking like we shouldn’t be expecting a Gore/Cheney sort of activist VP, more of a caretaker/gardener/advance man, with First Gentleman Bill handling the heavier lifting.
One last thing. Jcummings early on in this thread made yet another reference to HRC’s “sapphic proclivities.” I don’t think this is appropriate. Look, she has always surrounded herself with women who show a deep commitment to her. Some of them are pretty hot. Or at least they were when I was around her. That included some late nights out when bad liquor was flowing, the sort of situation where forbidden romance was likely to bloom, if the potential was there. I don’t believe it ever did. I thought then and have continued to believe that Hillary was very much in love with Bill, and not a lesbian. But even if she were, it is not a matter of public concern.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Fair game is fair game when she votes against gay marriage.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ouch…
“sapphic proclivities” – that particular locution is, uh, quite a mouthful. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
January 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Actually, having watched the Logo debate I think that all 3 Dem candidates are absolutely supportive of gay’s rights to equal legal recognition of their relationships and deserve credit. I am in no way shape or form interested in either Clinton’s sex life – which is a good reason not to vote for Hillary because this stuff will stay on the table as long as they are sitting at the head of it. Eight years of this kind of crap – increasingly boring and with vast potential for creating a Beltway Soap Opera if Bill gets caught with floozy (certainly possible-to-likely) that would turn our politics into another Clinton Carnival Sideshow. A very bad dream that I don’t want to wake up in the middle of…
January 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Soap Opera..Carnival Sideshow..bad dream..in just 2 sentences ? ObviouslyI went overboard with the mediocre and/or timeworn metaphors.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I think that the Democratic contenders should be proud of their positions on homosexuals (missionary not being one) and tell all the voters the details of what they could expect from a Democratic administration.
Campaign Frustrates Some Gay Activists
“Even as they expect to support whichever Democrat gets the presidential nomination, many activists are disappointed that the three leading contenders rarely mention gay-rights topics unless responding to a question.
“‘They don’t want to broach civil unions, marriage, equalizing benefits for same-sex couples,’ said Jennifer Chrisler, head of the Family Equality Council, which supports gay and lesbian families.
“‘They’ve merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America,’ Ryan-Vollmar wrote. ‘That’s not leadership, it’s poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple.’”
January 25th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Bad dreams?
This reminds me of McCain and reading somewhere that he still wakes up drenched in sweat, having nightmares of all those bombs he dropped killing innocent women and children. Talk about a lunatic and a baby killer…
January 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
hey! It lookd like Florida and Michigan are gonna count, after all. Who knew?
January 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I had to look it up.
Clinton wants Florida, Michigan delegates to Democratic convention reinstated
She’ll probably ask to let Vince Foster’s vote count, too.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Like I’ve said before…the Clinton’s are trailer trash.
“Duane Jones…said he rented six rooms to the Clinton campaign….(for the ) Iowa caucuses. Jones said when he went into the building after the campaign staff had cleared out, he discovered garbage, spoiled food, holes that had been drilled in the walls to run phone lines without his authorization, and stains on the carpet that will require some of the carpeting to be replaced.”
If Jones had checked with the Clinton’s last landord, he would have found that they trashed the place and stole property from there. Address? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“…he would have found that they trashed the place and stole property from there. Address? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Didn’t you know, Woody? The ghost of Keith Moon lives in the Lincoln Bedroom.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Lets see. Remember all those stories about the Clintonistas trashing the West Wing before they left for the Bushies? All False of course – the product of
Karl Riove’s imagination.
But some yo-yo in Clinton Iowa (of all places) says they made a mess and Woddy buys it. Hey maybe that’s why people use his accounting services – he buys any deductions?
January 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
And tell you what woody. When Bush comes clean about his cocaine use and Laura admits to that Vehicular manslaughter charge (DUI related), then, maybe, I’ll consider your “Evidence” on Vince Foster that $70 million and Ken Starr missed!
January 25th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
You know I really am getting sick of having to spend all my time hear defending the Clintons from attacks from mouth breathers. An I’m really tired of having to point out the really scurilous nature of the attacks on Hillary. I’m beginning to side with Katha Pllit of the NATION, no fan of the Clinton’s policies, whon wrote that these attack just might make her vote for Hil to get back at these jackals.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Yeah, that’ll show the side that pretty much is reduced to Hillary-bashing to motivate the “base”. They’ll hate you for it…
January 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Are Woody’s references to “trailer trash” a sign that the Rove wing of the GOP is not only dead, but mummified? The best thing they can do is recycle the very worst ad hominem cliches about Clinton, cliches that didn’t prevent him from winning the White House twice.
Or it could be that Woody’s just dumber than the average Rove Republican…
Should Hillary win, I’d hope she’d pick Obama as her VP. Barring that, Edwards would be fine. Better would be Bloomberg.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Jcummings–while I understand the argument for “outing” closet gays who vote against what is viewed as the gay community’s interest, I don’t think it justifies making a candidate’s sex life part of the campaign. And even if it did, it does not justify vague rumor-mongering, even where you say you know people who know people who know the truth.
As for the “fair game” comment, you seem to be inhabited by the spirit of that old Texas sheriff LBJ talked about who told his cronies he was going to charge his opponent as a pigf***er. When his buddy said, “you know ol’ Vern ain’t no pigf***er,” the sherf responded, “well, maybe he is and maybe he ain’t, but I want to here the sumbitch deny it.”
Jc, aren’t you really dying to hear Hillary deny it?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
RLC… u know u make me laugh. Defending the Clintons is a choice, not something hereditary. You wish to do so, fine. But you btter take your supplments because as long as they are on the scene, they’re gonna be attacked. Some of it is undeserved, of course. But basically, they are both walking dirt bags.. and dirt bags attract dirt.
All I have to say is that after 8 yers of the Bush disaster, after the generational changeover we’re experiencing, the massive and rampant corruption of the system itselg, the gilded age glorification of excess and indifference, the truly frightening economic and global challeneges that haunt our future, it’s really really friggin’ sad that the best we wind up doing is re-hiring a couple of well-known hucksters who are absolutely guaranteed to defend the status quo. Take ur vitamins Richard, because I herevy predict that if the Clintons return, 3-4-5 years down the road ur gonna be confronted with an absolutely outraged and disilluioned Millenium Generation who will make the 60′s baby boomers look like somnolents.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I don’t need to heaer Hillary deny it.
I know from godo authority what famous Toronto heiress was fucking around with Bill Clinton. From what I know, there’s is a marriage based on love, and a recognition that both have different sexual tastes. Its an open secret that Hillary is a dyke.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Pardon my offensive language. Back from Shabbat dinner with observant relatives. Had a little wine.
I understand the notion that one shouldn’t want the Clintons sex lives to be in the campaign. They will be, whether we like it or not. And if it sinks them, so be it.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
rlc: “What Marc seems to ignore is that whomever the Dems nominate the GOP slime machine will greet with a free proctology exam guarenteed to be vicious and personal.”
Richard, and the democratic slime machine? What do you think they will be doing? Sitting on their laurels?
What bull shit!
January 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Tell me: Is the phrase “inner-city slum lord” race-baiting or not? Clinonites are starting to sound like the Republicans when they were trying to explain away Trent Lott.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I’ll add something, of all the Democraps running, the only one worth a damn (at least to this conservative’s point of view) is Obama. At least he seems honest enough. We know damn good and well that Edwards is a shyster who channels baby’s with CP and hillary and bill are crooked assholes from the get go.
If Obama wins, I won’t be upset at all. I’ll campaign against him likely (depending on who the Repubs nominate), but if they nominate a jerk then I’m either gonna sit out the election or vote for a Democrat the third time in my life.
And for you folk that think the Swiftboaters lied about kerry, you know that T Boone Pickens is offering $1 million for proof that the Swifboaters lied, why don’t you go collect it? In fact, why doesn’t Kerry go collect it? The offer still stands and has for at least two months… surely you can PROVE one lie in that time… can’t you?
January 25th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Looks like Hil and Bill got stuck in a line-up with someone who looks a hell-of-a-lot like an inner-city slum lord.
rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_confronts_Hillary_with_slum_lord_0125.html
Jesus Tony, is that you? At long last sir, have you know self-respect?
January 25th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
It’s so great to see reg knock the Clintons! I’ve enjoyed the last couple of days of comments.
Please, please, please don’t make me sit through 4 (or 8 *shudder*) more years of the Clintons. The thought is almost too much to take.
Cummings – don’t you have a commodity fetish you could go study instead of the current one you seem to have?
January 25th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“Tell me: Is the phrase “inner-city slum lord†race-baiting or not?”
No, it isn’t. Has nothing to do with race.
The Clintons are imperfect, to be sure, but fine people, as politicians go.
Bill did a very, very good job of fending off the kind of disasters we’ve seen under Bush. No, he didn’t bring a liberal nirvana. Yes, he compromised and “triangulated,” but to his credit, he did so out of a calculation that it was necessary for political survival.
Unfortunately, too many liberals like Marc have no other mode than high dudgeon. All they know how to do is complain and insult and so, instead of looking at Clinton’s overall performance UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, they focus on the failures and pretend that hyperbolic condemnation is some kind of moral position.
Marc writes:
“ it’s really really friggin’ sad that the best we wind up doing is re-hiring a couple of well-known hucksters who are absolutely guaranteed to defend the status quo.”
One of Marc’s problems is that he’s in denial about the extent of the right’s political power in America.
The fusion of pharmaceutical, oil, media and military industrial money with fundamentalist Christianity and nativism has produced a very, very powerful political faction. In number, it is short of a majority, but in political power, it remains unrivaled.
The massive failure in Iraq, coupled with the Bush recessions, is digging some cracks in the GOP power bloc, but that is most likely temporary. Eventually, the Iraq disaster will be forgotten and the economy will bounce back and the corporate media white Christian power axis will once again have the potential to dominate.
Liberals need to accept that change must be gradual. Nothing we can do is going to crush the GOP machine overnight, or even during a single presidency. This will take decades, and we will only get there with patience and a decent respect for incomplete victories.
The kind of childish ranting calling Clintons “dirtbags” and so forth does nothing to help sustain the kinds of incremental gains liberals can win in a country that is so deeply divided ideologically.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Bambi Bill: “She (his wife Hillary) and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”
But Obama has illusions about the GOP slime machine…and is too close to conservatives…
January 26th, 2008 at 8:11 am
January 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am
No, McCain is a Cold War Hawk, or Dr. Strangelove who was foursquare in favor of bussing.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Hillary makes point of Obama being black….
White voters desert Obama as race divide starts to bite
“The Clinton strategy of marginalising Barack Obama as an African-American candidate showed signs of success on the eve of today’s Democratic primary in South Carolina.”
People should look at Obama the same as the townspeople in Blazing Saddles. The new sheriff is saving us, and his color doesn’t matter. Even Mongo respected him.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am
rlc, I don’t “buy any deductions.” My client’s aren’t crooks and neither am I. It’s one thing to put down something to be questoned on Marc’s site versus putting it on a tax form going to the IRS. You would know if you ever filed.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357
January 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Cummings: I think that link is screwed up. Might that be the Cockburn Heresy?
January 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Marc, did YOU READ Katha Pollit? Do you think she’s a “Hereditary” defender of the Clintons? Yet she says that the invective against Hillary is of such a level that its making her think she should vote for Clinton just to show the critics up. Whjat does that tell you? Katha has sold out? Like Gloria Steinham? Like Patricia Williams? Like Jane Hamsher? I could go on but my point is simple, if you want to criticize her policy positions then fine.
I for one think that she is way too bellicose – she has refused to acknowlege that her vote to authorize the use of force was a mistake and she compounded that by saying “Yes” to Kyl-Lieberman. She supported the Bankruptcy bill and her Health care plan with its Individual Mandate is a bonanza for the insurance industry which has generously supported her campaign. And, yes, she has a lot of retreads from Bill’s foreign policy apparat around her that suggest a paucity of new ideas and she gets lots from the Rubin/Summers/Wall St. crowd which suggests little chance that her trade policy would be different.
For all those reasons I back Edwards.
(I would note here that Obama also gets lots of dough from Wall Street and the FIRE crowd. He and GHillary have the same record on funding the war – that is when he deigns to show up and vote. And his stimulus plan is, as noted on HUFFPO yesterday is quite modest and does nothing to aid those threatened with foreclosure. I might add that his principal advisors on the economy come from the U. of Chicago which ought to give pause to anyone familiar with the division of social sciences there and Economics in particular.)
(Oh Dear, now I’ll have Reg on my ass again!)
So, yes, I’m not under any illusions about Hillary. And I can and do recognize her deficiencies. See my postings over the last two years. But, frankly, you dismissal of her and her husband seem far more personal and petty than policy disagreements. Can it be that in the end your distaste boils down to the fact that they won elective office and you’re one of those on the left that sees any success in “corrupt” Elective politics as a sign of deviltry. Plus the comments that border on sexism – see Pollit et.al. above.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Poor Woody. He can defame anyone but, like a wounded child, is offended when someone turns his invective around and suggests he look at his own practices. All I have to say is:
WAAUGGHHHH!!!!
January 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html
This is good on Barack
January 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yes – its Cockburn (whose views on this issue are compelling) talking of being witch-hunted and even threatened over his stance on “climate change”
January 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
rlc, I expect such from a left-wing, tax dodger like you.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
left-wing, tax dodger
?!?!?!?!?!?
Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha …..
January 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
jesus, i read that piece by rlc?
i love blog drama
and regsaid he had to stop wanking…
January 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Listener, that “train ride” story you linked about overhearing the opponents may have as much truth to it as Bill Clinton walking with a phalanx of secret service agents with reporters all around and overhearing a conversation regarding consipiracy on the campaign trail from some by-standers. On rlc, I left off nose-picking.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You forgot flatulence, restless leg syndrome, and the heartbreak of psoriosis!
January 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Amongst all of the various reasons not to want the Clinton’s back in office (and that list is already long), I’d like us to be a lot more suspicious of political dynasties. The last one hasn’t worked out so well for us. I’m not saying that Bush and Hilary are at all alike (well at least not that much alike). It shouldn’t be a formal rule, but rather a tradition enforced by the electorate, we should almost automatically reject any candidate for president who had a husband, wife, father, brother, whatever, who was president within the last 20 years. Dynasties like that are inherently anti-democratic. I’m still pissed about the Adamses.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Jonathan Chait of “even the New Republic” – Is the Right right about the Clintons ?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column
January 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Character” is only an issue because it makes for easy journalism.
It’s much harder to write about results. What were the results of the Clinton presidency?
What was the result of the Reagan presidency?
These are the issues and to the extent that we focus on “character” of politicians, we’re navel-gazing in a way that does very much to destroy rational politics.
Let’s just assume that superlative character exludes one from participation in politics. People of the highest morals and character will never succeed in a democracy–other than by sheer, exceptional, rare luck–because democracy descends to the lowest common denominator. The McDonald’s effect.
McDonald’s is the world’s biggest restaurant chain, yet no one thinks their hamburgers are any good. We could sit here all day and come up with thousands of reasons McDonald’s food is sub-par. But at some point, we’d have to concede the reality that people vote with their wallets, and McDonald’s is what we get.
Bill Clinton is a Big Mac. You don’t have to love it, but you will eat it.
If Obama wins, I’ll bet euros to dollars he’ll end up making compromises on the liberal agenda that are similar in impact to the one’s Clinton made and that he will have successes in limiting the politics of nativism and chauvinism, just as Clinton did.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It’s much harder to write about results. What were the results of the Clinton presidency?
-mass murder
What was the result of the Reagan presidency?
-mass murder
January 26th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Bill Clinton is a Big Mac. You don’t have to love it, but you will eat it.”
I’ve just gone vegetarian.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Now cummings has gone all Chomskey on us.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Let’s remind everyone that Obama is black and won’t beat a white Republican.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Does cummimgs mean that future POTUS Chelsea is insufficiently liberal? Ow–my head hurts…
January 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Chelsea works in finance. I don’t doubt she’ll be sitting on the boards of corporations that use African tribesmen as guinea pigs.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“incidentally, no one’s arguing that Obama won’t be “slimed†– we just didn’t expect it to start from the Clinton machine….”
Yeah, Hillary Clinton has always been a clean fighter….hard to imagine…the same lady who introduced James Carville and Dick Morris (a man so “slimy” that he gives mere slime a bad name…) to her husband and the public.
Maybe we all need to pass around a coin bucket to collect for you, Reg, so that you may use the proceeds to buy a clue.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
By the way, and maybe I am semi-alone here, but I won’t feel sorry for either Bill or Hillary – or the Democratic Party and its supporters – if these salacious (but always borish) “new allegations of infidelity” sink her candidacy for President after she gets the nomination. In fact, my guess is that her team has already been working the phones for months to find dirt on McCain, Romney, etc. Bill and Hillary Clinton have not only never proven themselves to be above slinging mud at political foes, they actually wrote the book on it.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
There seems to be a rather inflamed double standard when it comes to the Clintons and race.
If a pundit points out that Obama is attracting black voters, he’s making an observation and one that few people would challenge.
When Clinton makes the same observations, he’s accused of race-baiting.
When pundits question whether white Americans will vote en masse for a black man–even though Obama’s just as white as he is black–we know they are asking a valid, relevant question.
Allow me to digress:
The allegation of racism has become virtually meaningless in America anyway. If a slight can be implied or inferred from a comment, it will be, regardless of the speaker’s intent.
The Don Imus imbroglio is a perfect example. Here the guy cracks a joke–albeit a lame one–and suddenly he’s accused of the same category of offense as someone who advocates apartheid. Worse, you’ve got people like Rush Limbaugh, who, because they are careful to use coded language, get away with advocating public policies aimed directly at keeping ethnic minorities subjugated. But because he’s never used the word “ho” to describe a black person, he still has his job.
Actually, Rush did lose one job as a football announcer for making a comment that was interepreted at racist. Though in this case I’d have to say that it actually did review a kind of racial paranoia that is disconcerting, but certainly not nearly as bigoted as the kind of public and foreign policies he advocates.
The Clintons have no record whatsoever of being bad to Afro-Americans in their personal or political life. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that either Hillary or Bill want to do harm to Afro-Americans or any other minority–with the possible exception of Muslims.
So how can we then accuse Bill of playing race cards against Obama? It’s a simple fact that Afro-American voters are more likely to vote for another Afro-American. There is nothing slimey or underhanded in any way about stating that, or about stating that this poses a challenge for white candidates and may also have an effect on the general election.
It will be a huge mistake of both the Clintons don’t campaign vigorously all the way through to Nov. 2008, whether or not Hillary wins the nomination.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Interesting fact about the Clintons and the black vote – In 1992 Bill Clinton won 82 percent of the black vote in the general election. In Nov. 1988 Michael Dukakis had won 89 percent of the black vote. I think this notion that black folks all love Bill Clinton, aside from highly-publicized, opportunistic associations and an FOB aura on the part of certain AfAm celebrities, increasingly out-of-touch elders and wealthy “VIPs” – over and above his having been the only Democrat to actually win the presidency in the last quarter century and his presiding over relative prosperity with a fair degree of competence – is a bit of bamboozlement that the Clintons themselves took for granted at their peril. They alsos proved themselves “generous” in dispensing “street money” to black churches to help “get out the vote.” Unfortunately, this is standard practice among old-school Dems and it has been considered being effective. The Obama campaign, to their credit, decided not to compete with the Clintons at that “street” level but attempted to elevate their appeal to voters across the board – and appear to have a good chance of succeeding.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:00 am
“been considered being effective” ??????
WTF?