Seems like another case of then and now.
In 2004, Bill Clinton said that even though the Democratic approach to government is favored by most Americans, the Republican approach to cultural issues like "God, gays, and guns" helps keep the GOP competitive in places like Oklahoma. He also cited white racism (euphemistically described as "white Southerners who were opposed to civil rights") as an important part of the Republican coalition.
In 2007, Clinton said that economic anxiety leads to anti-trade and anti-immigrant politics. The problem, he said, was that there wasn't "enough good new jobs."
Here's the video:
To be fair, in these video clips, Bill Clinton chose his words better than Barack Obama did on that one occasion in San Francisco, but viewed in combination with Obama's other remarks on this topic, it is clear that both are talking about the same political dynamic.
Transcript essentials:
2004, on "God, gays, and guns":
When I left office, about two-thirds of the people supported the general direction we had taken. The election of 2000 was 50-50 in part because they're much more closely divided if you can the case should we cut taxes or not, instead of what are the consequences of a tax cut. And they are much more divided on the cultural issues. As my Democrat (sic) friends from Oklahoma say, "God, gays, and guns."
2004, on southern white racism:
In the mid- to late- 70s, most of the white Southerners who were anti-civil rights had migrated by then to the Republican Party...then the religious right came up in the 70s as a potent political force...they thought they had found a permanent way of holding the White House.
2007, on link between jobs and anti-trade, anti-immigrant politics
So there's a lot of economic anxiety, in the Republican Party it expresses itself as this sort of very hard line against immigration, in the Democratic Party it expresses itself in this very hard line against trade, but the real problem is we haven't created enough good new jobs.
(The 2004 footage from The Hunting of the President. 2007 footage from The Charlie Rose Show.)
::
For politicians, inconsistency is nothing new, and neither is hypocrisy. You can pretty much predict some times of hypocrisy or inconsistency. (Just about any Democrat will moderate their views on gun control as they climb the political ladder; most Republicans do the same on choice.)
The issue is when a politician displays a pattern of inconsistency or hypocrisy, to the point that you don't know what to believe -- and when that politician shows an inability to distinguish right from wrong.
The Clintons have long had credibility issues, but at least for me, it's only become clear of late that they also don't have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Hillary Clinton's closed-door slam on MoveOn.org and Democratic party activists is a perfect example of the credibility problem -- one year earlier she had praised them:
Another example -- Bill Clinton praising MoveOn.org in 2004:
Who do you believe? What can you count on?
Nothing, it turns out.
::
As I mentioned, it's not just a matter of credibility, it's also a question of distinguishing right from wrong.
Nothing captures that like the attacks Barack Obama's patriotism, the most recent of which Bob Johnson discussed earlier today.
The most depressing thing about these attacks is that Bill Clinton endured the exact same attack -- from right wing thugs like Roger Ailes. Watch this brief recut of The War Room, the documentary on the 1992 presidential campaign. The similarities are eerie.
Ultimately, Bill and Hillary Clinton learned the wrong lessons.
And now what we're left with is the Clinton Repugnancy.
::
I also blog at The Jed Report.