Skip to main content

Yes, I know it's tough to top "Fairy Tale," Jesse Jackson, or "against Iraq war from the beginning." And of course, caucus voters don't need presidents. But check out his latest silly attack below the jump.

Per ABC.

ABC News' Sarah Amos reports that former President Bill Clinton -- despite myriad promises he would stop assailing his wife's opponent given how it has backfired on her -- upped his harsh attacks today in Tyler, Texas.

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

Silly. Just silly.

Obama response:

UPDATE: Obama campaign spox Bill Burton tells ABC News in response, "It appears that the man who once told us 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow' has changed his tune and is now singing 'Yesterday' everywhere he goes."

Edit: Keith Olbermann is all over this like white on rice.

Edit 2: Here is a nice story from the NYT on Obama's career in the Illinois State Senate.

Edit 3: And a story about Obama organizing the vote for Bill Clinton in 1992. HT: RobertInWisconsin

Originally posted to turneresq on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:03 PM PST.

Poll

Which is the Clinton Campaign's most outlandish statement?

6%17 votes
18%51 votes
37%104 votes
16%45 votes
21%59 votes

| 276 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  bill (18+ / 0-)

      is a mere shadow of what he was.  it is sad to see.

      Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him. Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I see, then it was murder!

      by ratador on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:07:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It really is (13+ / 0-)

        As Keith said, they appear angry.

        "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars." -Pat Buchanan on John McCain

        by turneresq on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's Keith's take? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avila, highacidity, turneresq

          And to think I use to like the Clintons...

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Keith is also highlighting the other 2 comments (12+ / 0-)

          that have been making waves here at Kos recently, the "insignificant" states and the caucus-goers-don't-need-a-president quips. Looks like Keith not only posts diaries here, he's actually reading too! LOL

          •  When Bill says the bad things from before that (0+ / 0-)

            were stopped, is he reffering to the Clinton's machines savage retaliations and attacks and on the reputations of Monica Lewinki, Paula Jones, Jaunita Broderick, Gennifer Wiley, etc and the other woman he either harrassed, abused, or had illicit affairs with?

            Have the Clinton's every apologized about this?  

            Or maybe he is reffering to the lieing to the American public about it.

            I can't believe how much time and energy I spent supporting the Clinton's and defending them against the dirty tricks and attacks from right wing slimeballs.

            How tremendously sad to see them reverting to the same tactics.

            We need a change of not just the names but this whole modality of politics.  

            Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

            by HoundDog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please leave the rightwing talking points out of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat

              this discussion.

              •  It's history. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

                by HoundDog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No it is not. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you knew your history from any perspective than the American Spectator, you would realize that Paula Jones was a put up job by the rightwing who got away with putting lipstick on the pig.  They had to give her a whole new appearance, clothes, money and bring her back again after the whole bunch of lies was thrown out of court.

                  And Juanita Broaderick was a lie that the rightwing tried to bring back too.  Her family said none of it was true but facts don't mean anything to a lot of folks posting at dkos anymore.  

                  You could check the facts at Media Matters because David Brock has fact checked all that bullshite and wrote a book dedicated to the rightwing media and tells who and where each of the lies came to be.

                  It is a really sad day when dkos becomes filled with the bullshite that the rightwingers used against Clinton to hope it wins anything at all for the Presidency.

                  I guarantee that the media tried to sell all of this shite during and prior to the impeahcment and the public wouldn't buy it and they aren't buying it now either.

                  Just because a few folks here who have no interest in truth spew these disgusting lies because they think it turns people against the Clintons.  At some point even folks here get sick of it and it backfires.

                  You can overdo the negative lies.  More and more folks here at dkos are turning against this kind of tactic.

                  PaintyKat

                  WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                  by PaintyKat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:59:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We can debate Paula Jones, but you can't (0+ / 0-)

                    possible deny that attacks, and smears were used to undermine Monica Lewinski before the truth came out.  And Gennifer Flowers and many others are not contested. HRC not just a remote housewife, she was a central leader in the Clinton attack machine.  We are naive if we pretend all of this muck, but the true and the unfounded smears is going to be redreded up case by case for four  more years.  

                    The GOP has announced this will be their strategy and the website, books, teashirts, DVDs etc have already been produced.  Fired up and ready to go the day after nomination if HRC wins.  This is why they are so suddenly worried that BHO will win.  Yes, they will try the same tactic against him, but their are years behind on production, and opposistion research.  

                    Many of Clinton's own advisors have told the story of their hardball attack and counter attack tactics.  Dick Morris says the Clinton's wrote the book on the politics of personal destruction. Was it Klein who authored Primary Colors a fictional account based on the reality of what he saw on the campaign trail?

                    But more importantly, HRC and Mark Penn have chosen to elevate the potential damage of scandal and it's impact on electability as their number one issue.  

                    So if they play this as an attack card, we all now sadly have the obligation to open the door on the long list of allegations and evalute them objectively.

                    If the GOP had sent us a years advance notice that the Willie Horton adds would be used to take down Dukakis we could have either worked to deflate them, or chosen a different candidate.  But denial and ignoring the attack ads turned out to be a disastor.

                    And it is not just right wing slimeballs who are mentioning this.  Try googleing and and you will find Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and many other MSM have pointed out over a dozen other brewing scandals or dirt that can be used as scandals.

                    And not all of it old. HRC may have to testify in Calfornia on this new case related to the Marville comic book corporation.  You tube as the Stan Lee deposition up if you want to check it out.

                    Unless we want to redo a massive denial strategy we would be wiser to take a look at this now than wait for it all to come crashing down unexpectedly.

                    But it is HRC and Mark Penn that chose to elevate this exact issue in their latest choice to go negative.

                    Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

                    by HoundDog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  What's right wing about the truth. (0+ / 0-)

                I have always found it amazing how women defend him. Should you judge a man by his actions, his repeated actions. Democrats payed a heavy price defending him, and we will again if they are let back in the WH.

                Are you willing to to have the coin flip nominee (Hillary) against McCain with the Supreme Court in the balance.. I think not..

                The Clinton Legacy: Don't Ask Don't Tell, George W. Bush..

                by Blue Texas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:34:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Something ain't right with that (4+ / 0-)

        boy.

        "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom." Barack Obama

        by PrometheusSpeaks on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's tremendously sad. He used to be may (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        casablanca

        favorite President of this century and one of the greatest politcians of all time.  What happened?

        I wonder if he might have some kind of degenerative cognitive disorder?

        It's time to turn the page and start a clean slate.  

        Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

        by HoundDog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Am I the only progressive (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lisactal

          that is sickened by all these Clinton attacks?

          Seriously people.  STOP IT.  

          You can (and should) vocally support your candidate but can't that be done without participating in tearing down the Clintons?  Leave it to the media - they're good at it.  It is the exact same treatment that Gore was given in 2000 and now they're doing it to Hillary and too many of you seem to be on board with them.  And I have  to say - this whole episode is SERIOUSLY deteriorating any love I've ever had for Keith - he's getting as bad as tweety.  MSNBC has it in for the Clintons in the worst way and the most awful part about it is that all these Daily Kos'ers are in it too.  

          what the hell is going on around here?  First we let the media tell us who is viable and who isn't and NOW we are participating in the burning at the stake of one of our own?

          I'm sickened by it.  I'm not a Hillary supporter but at this point - I might just switch because this is getting my blood boiling and its not right.

          by the way - Turn the page and clean slate??  Please, its not that much of a what have you done for me lately world and if it is = then none of the progressive work that was done in the 90's was worth those it was done for.

          Is it November yet?

          by oaktav on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:57:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Clinton record of the 90's is largely mixed (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Reagan Smash, ratador, tatertots

            The tax increase of '93 was very good.  NAFTA, welfare "reform," and telecom dereg were not.

            The Clinton campaign is like the sequel to a mediocre movie.  WJC's pique about the fact that crowds aren't rushing to the theaters to see it is getting more tiresome by the day.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I congratulate Bill Clinton for both his policies (0+ / 0-)

              especially domestic and economic.  After inhereting gigantic deficts and debts he turned the economy around to record surpluses and put the economy on track to even erasing the debt in the upcoming decades.

              George Bush Jr. squandered this legacy and will leave the next president with such gigantic deficitsa and debts that it will make it extra challenging to turn things around the way Bill Clinton did.  Especially since about a trillion so far and potentially another trillion of not properly accounted for Iraq War debt will be weighing us down for decades to come.

              Please do not misunderstand my compartmentalized criticisms of former president Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama as a lack of acknowledgement for his many fantastic accomplishments.

              We will be able to consider ourselves lucky if either of our current candidates is even as fractionally as successful as he was in turning around the collapsing economy as he was.

              It seems tragically unfair that the next president will need to spend his/her first four to maybe even eight years trying to pay for the bluders of this Bush administration.

              Even after the tragic Lewinski et al episodes I was still advocating Bill Clinton to be leader of the UN and have great praise for his Global Initives effort and the bi-partensan way with which he has joined with former president Bush Sr. to lead charitable efforts around the world, but especially in Africa.

              So it is with great remorse and inner conflict that I made the comments above.  I apologize for losing my temper.  The audacity of the "BHO was not part of the good things of the 90's" comment put me over the top.

              In retrospect, I wish I had exercised more restraint and taken the time to reframe my concerns for the current possible negative consequences of his campaign attacks in a more positive and constructive way.

              As I have been encouraging others to do.

              But, after reflection, I beleive it is a fair and even necessary discussion for Democrats to lift the self-imposed veil of denibility we seem to have about mentioning anything negative from the past in this  campaign.

              While I admire and encourage positive campaigning and rededicate myself to this aspiration, I do not believe we can expect the Republicans to do the same.

              In fact, we know for sure,  because Rove and others have already published their intended campaign strategy against HRC (drive up her negatives a few points.)

              It is truly tragic that they may not have to.  Because if we let the next two months play out the way it looks like it might, they will not have to, because Democrats will have done it for them.

              Therefore, I ask potential Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn, and her other advisors and supporters to immediately back off of this latest "what are the potential Obama scandals" tactic.  

              Because, eventually, I will not be the only one who notices that this is going to blow up in her and our faces. There are whole website already set up to centralize dozens of real, alleged and some totally made up Clinton scandals, with many specific to HRC. (try googling).

              The GOP has the Willie Horton strategy ads fired up and ready to go.

              Are we not permitted to discuss these now here?  Even those who favor HRC should favor the traditional wisdom of the Machiavelli strategy of getting all the bad news out fast to puncture and deflate it.  Rather than letting it festure or take those who don't know it yet by surprise.

              Anyhow, sorry to be anywhere near this kind of negativity.  I will not bring it up again, if that is the choice of this community.  

              Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

              by HoundDog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  This has nothing to do with the "media." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ratador

            Frankly, this comment doesn't strike me as that bad, but Bill has said a LOT of uncalled-for shit this primary season. The Jesse Jackson comment, accompanied with a demeaning smirk, and the recent remark about "people who don't need a president" are by far the worst, in my book. And as someone else here said (sorry, can't remember who), he stood silent during eight years of Bush. He never once attacked him nearly half as brutally as he is Obama. Indeed, he "defended Bush from the left on Iraq."

            The Clintons had their time, and they did a decent job, but we don't need them back in the WH again. It's time to move on.

            •  Don't know where you have been but (0+ / 0-)

              Former Presidents Clinton and Carter have both criticized Bush strongly and it was always an unwritten code that past Presidents didn't criticize sitting Presidents.  Since Bush has been so terrible they couldn't hold their voice, they have both spoken out repeatedly and strongly.

              This kind of misstatement removes any credence you might have gotten for your criticism of Bill Clinton.

              PaintyKat

              WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

              by PaintyKat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:51:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  What's Progressive about the Clintons? (0+ / 0-)

            I think you better check the record.. Hillary is to the right of McCain..

            The Nineties were not progressive, it was centrist, triangulation, politics of personal destruction of which we could have all lived without(if he could keep his Willy under control), Big Business with Big Business Donors.. I think your confused about what you think a progressive is..

            The Clinton Legacy: Don't Ask Don't Tell, George W. Bush..

            by Blue Texas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  actually... (0+ / 0-)

              I'm pretty damn clear about what it means to be progressive.

              another thing that is starting to infuriate me about the left is the basic fact that what is termed centrist or triangulation (thinly veiled insults) around here was the BEST that could be achieved in most instances.  but somehow that wasn't good enough, huh?

              I swear, some people here would rather be right and get nothing done than to move in the right direction and get 80 percent of what you wish for.

              all or nothing is a stupid starting point.

              Is it November yet?

              by oaktav on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  hmm (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, cookiesandmilk, peraspera, ratador

      And to think I use to like the Clintons...

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a "harsh attack"??? (9+ / 0-)

      I don't know who is more insane - the media, or the Obama supporters on this web site.

      Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

      by markusd on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How the hell is this an "outlandish" attack? (0+ / 0-)

      Honestly, its a bit of a mischaracterization, but the most outlandish attack yet?

      Bill must have been a bit better behaved during the campaign than I've been told...

  •  Should Bill be making jokes about... (30+ / 0-)

    "land I want to sell you"?

    "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

    by Greasy Grant on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM PST

    •  Heh (18+ / 0-)

      No kidding. WTF?

      "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars." -Pat Buchanan on John McCain

      by turneresq on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You caught that too, huh? (7+ / 0-)

      :)

      Ready to go, y'all. -4.48, -4.56

      by pseudopod on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill shouldn't be saying anything about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Empower Ink

      his administration with first apologizing.

      I support his return to public and his global initiatives work.

      But he needs to study the redemption and forgiveness model.  It's not a free liscence to act out again.  

      A little humility and respect for the community might be a good start.

      Through his own actions he disgraced himself, the office of the Presidency, and did tremendous damage to the Democratic  Party and this country.

      And barely escaped impeachment due to the charity and forgiveness a slim number of folks extended him.

      To go about now talking about the "good old days" is too much.

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill was impeached but not convicted (0+ / 0-)

        Every comment I read of yours is absolutely inaccurate.

        You need to learn what impeachment is and how it is accomplished.  It is a matter of the Constitution.

        The Senate voted not to convict and voted based upon the facts.  Politics entered into the decisions but charity and foregiveness were not issues at all.

        You really misrepresent the facts when you lay out these untruths.

        What is really bad is to use lies to try to attack your opponent.

        Your pious judgment shows your self-righteousness to be false and a joke.

        Your redemption and forgiveness is based on religion and I guess you are not aware that the Framer's of our Constitution belief that religion and state needed to be kept separate.

        Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and didn't Jesus say, "judge not lest ye be judged?"  What does that do for your idiotic judgmentalism?  It is OK though if you are slinging around GOP talking points.

        PaintyKat

        PaintyKat

        WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

        by PaintyKat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So let's see PaintyKat, you're point was that he (0+ / 0-)

          was indicted but not convicted.  But not even Bill now denies he had an affair with Monica Lewinski, an intern in the organization he led, and he lied about it to the American people, and to investigators.

          Is this you position?  I wrote several articles defending Bill Clinton at the time, I do not need lectures from you in either history or the consitution.  If you check the archives here, you may note somewhere between three dozen to 50 over the last three or more years using constitutional arguments to advocate the impeachment of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberta Gonzoles, and Donald Rumsfeld as well.  One you may want to look up is in fact entitled the Seven Steps To The Impeachment process wherein I detail the exact progression with required number of votes starting with the House Judiciary Committe.

          But I'm afraid you miss the main point.  Many of us who spent almost a decade of our lives passionately fighting for the Clintons and defendwating them through thick and thin, with counter attacks against the Lee Atewater (Karl Rove mentor) like slime attacks are not not only heartbroken, but angry they these same kind of tactics are being used unneccesarily by the Clintons themselves against one of our own, who appear to have great potential to take the next decade of political discourse in a different direction.

          Also, if you check the dkos deep archives you will find I too have argued for a seperation of church and state (its actual in the amendments.)

          Again, you appear to totally miss the point.  I was noting with regret the poignancy, sadness, and awkwardness of having Bill Clinton in front of the cameras once again, turning red and wagging his finger, playing the race card, and reminding us of the dirty tricks approach, against a Democrat.

          The two bullet point here Painty Kat are:

          1.  Bill after the magnitude of the disgrace, and damage he foisted upon our country, the office of the presidency, and the damage done to the Democratic Party, including helping the GOP gain control of the House and Senate, and damaging Al Gore's chances I would expect a little more humility and contrition.
          1.  It's not wise or good for either Hillary's campaign, nor the Democrats in the general election to have such a gut wrenching, negative and visceral reminder of our truly tragic and painful these episodes from the past were for the nation.  What incredibly audacity and lack of judgement to go out now and flaunt the 'Barack wasn't part of the "Good things of the 90s"?!?!

          Come on, do you not see the poignancy and almost certain disasterous consequences of such poor judgement?  

          And this is while he is supposedly on his good behavior and HRC promises she has him under control.  What's he going to be like for four years when there are no longer the vulnerability of consequences.

          It is a directly relevant campaign issue now, to ask what kind of alternative presidenncy will we have with the two candidates.  HRC and Mark Penn have chosen to make this the issue of the week.

          Electing a Clinton will be like taunting and legitimizing the GOP to bring this stuff from day on like they did before.  After losing the election to Bill the first time, they did not give him a fair chance.  They started launching the dirtiest of muck the right from the start, to damage his presidency and make "diviseness" an issue for the next campaign.

          It is a big legitimate issue for Dems now to ask ourselves if we want to make it this easy for them to do again.

          Let's not be naive, they are going to do this with whomever  we elect.  However, I believe it is a real, fair, and defendable proposition to say, at least with BHO they will have to come up with new stuff (which sets them back substantially."

          But more importantly, the question will be "how well does it stick?"  And how much of this will the American  people tolerate?  It's my belief, at least, from what I've seen so far, that BHO's different personality, will make the smears less stickable.

          You do not appear to be old enough to remember, but Ronald Reagan was called the Teflon president. He engaged in outragious, and probably impeachable offenses (such as Contrgate).  But with his cheerful, avuncular, I don't know the details, persona and style, we could not get the public to take these and other charges seriosly.

          But the remainging voters and super-delegates who are old enough to remember this history, need to analyze and think about these issues carefully before choosing which road to go down.

          One road were we can see with certainty what the road will look like, and another where it is much less certain.  

          Asking for an objective discussion of these realities may be painful, but not anywhere near as painful as the certain consequences of denial.

          Finally, I will grant you your attacks on me peronally, for excessive piousness, and self rightiousnes.

          Although, I would go furhter and restate it.  One of the things I find so painful about this Clinton situation is how it forces us, and especially be to become hypocrits.

          I've spent the last week, writing exhortations for everyone to be positive, turn the other cheek, etc.  And I've spent almost a decade attacking the slime ball tactics of Karl Rove, Lee Atewater, and the other GOP nutballs.  And writing about Karma etc.

          One of my highest rated comments here last week, was those who live by the sword die by the sword.

          So I am heartsick with remorse to have to be the one who stands up and points to these "lapses" of the Clintons.

          I am violating my own spiritual beliefs and making myself a hypocrit.

          However, the prospect of seeing the Democratic Party make such a tragic error is testing my discipline.

          It may come as a surprise to you, however, I am still exercising an enormous amount of self-restraint on this issue.

          So let me apologize for any negativity I've induced in you.  But let me ask that you objectively think about my points.  And ask yourself, what are the actual facts, and which of these issues are worthy of focused discussion and evaluation by all of us?

          Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

          by HoundDog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  LMAO! I missed that on the 1st pass - thx (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

      "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." --Thomas Jefferson

      by frisco on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What crap. (9+ / 0-)

    What does he even mean? Bad things like NAFTA? Waaa, someone tell me WHAT COUNTS anymore!

  •  Only Bill is smart enough to understand (9+ / 0-)

    what he is attempting to communicate. I wouldn't worry about this particular attack. it is so damned convoluted I had to read it twice to grasp the meaning. Chalk it up to dumb, not malicious.

    If it is spelled correctly---it's a typo

    by alasmoses on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM PST

  •  Keep talking Bill (7+ / 0-)

    Keep flapping those lips.

    Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976

    by chicago minx on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:08:12 PM PST

  •  If by "outlandish" you mean (8+ / 0-)

    weak beyond measure, then... yeah.

  •  Must disagree (17+ / 0-)

    While this one may be outlandish, I think the argument about wealthy Americans "thinking they want change, but they really don't need a president" takes the prize.

    OK, maybe it's a tie.

    Not a Cent to those who won't fight torture.

    by not a cent on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:04 PM PST

  •  Poor Bill. (6+ / 0-)

    He's not making any sense.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:09:18 PM PST

  •  Even George H.W. Bush had enough class (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cookiesandmilk, djolfs

    to not participate in the preposterous smears against McCain (such as the illegitimate black baby) which helped his son win the 2000 GOP primaries.

    "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

    by Greasy Grant on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM PST

    •  I can't believe you're comparing this to the (0+ / 0-)

      "illegititmate black baby" smear (which was hardly more classy: it just allowed him to shield himself from the fallout).

      I swear, some supporters of Obama are such WATB...

      •  You are right, it is not like that smear (0+ / 0-)

        But Bill could learn a few things from George H.W. Bush about campaigning for a family member.

        Mitt Romney looks like an American President in a Canadian movie. -Dave Letterman

        by jj32 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton's surrogates and staffers... (0+ / 0-)

        have been saying that the states that Obama's been winning aren't significant.  Also, caucuses are less meaningful than primaries, because Obama's won more caucuses than HRC.  Yet, Obama's supporters are WATBs.

        Hand me a bag!

        "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

        by Greasy Grant on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:25:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama, not part of the impeachment of (11+ / 0-)

    President Clinton in the 90s that lead to the election of Bush in 2000.  Obama, not part of NAFTA that destroyed American industry. Bill failed to mention that part.

  •  Perfect response by Obama (20+ / 0-)

    Yesterday,
    All my troubles seemed so far away,
    Now it looks as though they're here to stay,
    Oh, I believe in yesterday.

    Suddenly,
    I'm not half the man I used to be,
    There's a shadow hanging over me
    ,
    Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

    Why she
    Had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say.
    I said,
    Something wrong, now I long for yesterday
    .

    Yesterday,
    Love was such an easy game to play,
    Now I need a place to hide away,
    Oh, I believe in yesterday.

    Why she
    Had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say.
    I said,
    Something wrong, now I long for yesterday.

    Yesterday,
    Love was such an easy game to play,
    Now I need a place to hide away,
    Oh, I believe in yesterday.

    Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.

    This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA - Room 641A.

    by ManahManah on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:11:58 PM PST

  •  Hanging out with Bush seems to have (4+ / 0-)

    dropped Bill's IQ points more than a hair.

  •  My guess is that land offered for sale is in (5+ / 0-)

    Kazakhstan, courtesy of the president-dictator.

    •  Nah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indybend

      it's in North-central Arkansas off the White River.

      why else would one question that sort of statement?

      Although Northwest and Northern Arkansas are very nice places.

      "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

      by RBH on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is Olbermann saying? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, jj32
  •  Good response Obama (5+ / 0-)

    I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere ~ Thomas Jefferson

    by valadon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:18:03 PM PST

  •  the southern strategy is (0+ / 0-)

    disgusting whether the theme is racism, class based or plays on regional tensions

    please pardon the poor keyboarding, i can never decide which two of my ten thumbs to type with

    by TAPayne on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:23:27 PM PST

  •  Well we (0+ / 0-)

    can negotiate a deal for that land, then...

  •  I am just gobsmacked at what he's doing. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm embarrassed for him.  The desperation just makes me want to look away.  But I can't.  

    Have some dignity, Bill.  Finally?  Please?

  •  Isn't it pathetic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turneresq, Bronx59

    what he's become?

    •  Very sad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bronx59

      I wonder if he realizes what he's done for his legacy. Or cares.

      "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars." -Pat Buchanan on John McCain

      by turneresq on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:32:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it's been clear for years (4+ / 0-)

        that he often doesn't give much thought to the consequences of his personal actions.

        Still, as Democrats, I'm sure it hurts all of us to see him act in such a pathetic manner.

        •  Do ya think Bill got Strom Thruman's heart when (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          onanyes

          they did the by-pass surgery on him? You know, like it was a transplant instead of the triple by-pass?  These days, I don't even recognize the old Bill Clinton when I hear him speak. Or maybe I'm just really seeing him for the first time. But I guess, desperate times call for desperate measures, and there seems to a lot of desperate vibes coming from him.

          We don't need a President? Well, what do we need Bill, a Dictator or King?  We just had one of those for going on 8 years.

          We are insignificant states/voters? Well Bill, you are becoming more insignificant by the day, and a disgrace to those states/voters that worked their asses off for you and defended you when you did the indefensible.

          Every time these kind of "sanctimonious erroneous" statements come out, your legacy shrinks another mile for those of us that deeply and passionately believed in you.

          Badabing

  •  Where's the none option? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, moira977, Lisactal

    And Clinton has a point, which you conveniently missed. He is saying that Obama's stance right now is that you cannot be President if you politically existed in the 90s because you're the past.

    So when exactly are we beginning this whole new politics that isn't all about cherry picking and misrepresenting quotes?

    "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

    by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM PST

    •  I never heard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      turneresq

      Obama say that

      •  Actually he's said it many times. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lisactal

        Since you can misrepresent Clinton's words, I'm free to misrepresent Obama's right?

        He states that Clinton is about the past because Bill Clinton was president in the 1990s. So clearly he believes that any politician from the 1990s is about the past.

        If it's good for the goose...

        "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

        by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:35:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          turneresq

          Misrepresented Bill's words

          •  Well, then you're one of the few. (0+ / 0-)

            Like myself, I would never truly say Obama believes that. However, this quote picking needs to stop. It's only making this race less enjoyable for people who don't care about the latest soundbyte.

            I apologize, however, if I gave the wrong impression here. I do not know if you have, but the point is that this quote picking and twisting can be done in any which way -- so it really isn't meaningful.

            "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

            by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:40:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Silly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cookiesandmilk

          You misrepresent Obama's words yet provide no proof Obama misrepresented Bill's.

          "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars." -Pat Buchanan on John McCain

          by turneresq on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:37:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You want silly? (0+ / 0-)

            Here's silly.

            Obama says that Hillary Clinton is the past because of her history in Washington.

            Bill Clinton replies stating that Obama's view is that Clinton is the past because of her history in Washington, and adds in that good things happened so he's against that good thing.

            Then Obama releases a statement that Bill Clinton is living in the past by replying to Obama's statement that is about...the past!

            THEN you post it and cherry pick the quote about the quote about the quote about the quote.

            Clinton may be poorly choosing his words, but it's decidedly less silly than this Russian Doll of quotations.

            "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

            by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:47:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

              I've never heard him say SHE is the past, I have heard him say that the attacks that some of her staff are using are the politics of old.  I'd vote for either of them, I support BO, but Bill needs to shut up,  she would be in much better shape if he would.

              •  Here's some news clips for ya. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lisactal

                http://www.cbsnews.com/...

                "I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," the Illinois senator said in Denver."

                Effectively stating that electing her is turning back "to the past", pre-Bush, which Obama has also said was "bad for Democrats" -- insinuating that he would be good for Democrats.

                Which was Bill's point. Obama states that Clinton is the past, the past is bad, ergo Clinton shouldn't be elected. Clinton is saying that's bull. Having fights in the 90s, in his quote, does not preclude good presidency -- that is what his quote states.

                Obama has tied Hillary Clinton, multiple times, to being the past in everything. Past ideals, past votes, past politics, past ideas. Everything. Then he's gone on to say the past was bad for Democrats -- thus her, being a representation of that past, is bad for Democrats because her husband's presidency saw a shift from Democratic hold to Republican hold.

                "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

                by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Strawman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bronx59

      He is saying that Obama's stance right now is that you cannot be President if you politically existed in the 90s because you're the past.

      This is a typical strawman argument. Make up something your opponent didn't say - and then rebut it.

      Show me a quote which proves that the above said stance is really Obama's stance.

      As a resident of a low quality, insignificant state I need no president.

      by nataraj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:39:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nataraj, it's not a strawman. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lisactal

        A straw man is an over simplified argument that is constructed in the stead of a more difficult argument. The argument here is what Clinton said, which is clear -- he's saying that one of the arguments used against his wife is that she is the old politics and Obama is new, this based upon the time Clinton has been in office.

        And, Obama has stated that the 90s was a bad time for Democrats. He heavily insinuates that a Clinton WH is bad for Democrats, thus bad for the nation by proxy. So he's saying that voting for Hillary Clinton is bad for the party because of losing in the 90s.

        Clinton, of course, is taking some latitude with his comment, as all politicians do. Just look at Obama's reply.

        "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

        by jwalker13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:54:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  HuffPo has the quote by Bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turneresq

    as its headline, complete with that old picture of paunchy Bill playing the saxophone in sunglasses on Arsenio.  

    Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976

    by chicago minx on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:40:36 PM PST

  •  you forgot to add "all of the above" to poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turneresq, davidkc, William Domingo

    all equally disgusting

    please pardon the poor keyboarding, i can never decide which two of my ten thumbs to type with

    by TAPayne on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM PST

  •  White Water (0+ / 0-)

    Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you." B. Clinton

    I sure hope that land ain't in the backwoods of Arkansas next to a river.

    If I were running in this election, I'd be for change too. - George W. Bush

    by William Domingo on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:51:13 PM PST

  •  the real hillary (0+ / 0-)

    live in upstate ny, guess mrs. clinton is my senator. just had a friend get released from va hospital in syracuse ny, no soap, no shampoo, no toiletries[sp] at all for patients, nurses bring things in to help, what a freakin disgrace, of course she has more pressing matters, she never has given a darn about upstate ny,

  •  Bill's right again. (0+ / 0-)

    How did I live without him?

    by Pumpkinlove on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM PST

  •  Bill Today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes

    Bill's appearance in tyler doday, only 200 people.  Not a big crowd.  folks are really not interested in hearing what Bill has to say.  We Like him, but he is yesterday, and increasingly irrelevant.

    Go Obama!

  •  I would love to see HRC run as an independent (0+ / 0-)

    The comments Obama has made against Bill Clinton's presidency have been shocking. I am glad to see Bill giving as good as he has been getting.

    I personally would love to see HRC run as an independent is she does not get the nomination. I wonder if this is being considered?

    As an HRC supporter I can't say for sure that I'll be supporting Obama in the general election.

    Clinton/Bloomberg '08?

    "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" -William Jefferson Clinton

    by bluestatedude on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM PST

  •  Bloomberg wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

    touch Senator Clinton with a 10 foot pole.  I was never a Clinton worshiper, but for god's sake, now you aren't even allowed to disagree with him?  He has been a hindrance to the Clinton campaign, deny it, and you will be wrong.  If you want her to run as an independent, thats fine.  Everyone has an opinion, I just think yours is universally stupid.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site