The Former President, Former First Lady, and Young Senator

The year?  2008.

Also:  1960.

People may think that political debates were courteous affairs with high-falutin' niceties all around.

I wonder how many are aware of the Democratic nomination process in 1960, which involved a former President, a former First Lady, and a young Senator.

Harry Truman.  Eleanor Roosevelt.  John F. Kennedy.

Truman strongly opposed Kennedy's nomination, as did Ms. Roosevelt, privately in part on the grounds of his Catholic religion; publicly, President Truman came out and gave a televised speech right before the Democratic convention, resigning as a delegate, claiming that Kennedy was 'fixing the convention' and taking direct shots at his preparedness and experience.

Senator Kennedy came right back and firmly rebutted President Truman's criticism, and of course went on to win the nomination.

My point?  (continued  below)

Certainly the situation is very different in key ways.  Today, the former First Lady IS the candidate, and the former President is her husband.  In many ways, Senator Obama has a much bigger hurdle than Senator Kennedy did, because while Kennedy was facing Truman and Roosevelt's opposition, neither of them was directly involved in the campaign.

Obviously Hillary Clinton is a candidate and former Pres. Bill Clinton is vocally and visibly involved, directly, in her campaign as well.

And the 'young Senator' in question is older than Kennedy was in 1960.

But there are some parallels, and I for one am thrilled to see Senator Obama stand up and slug back, hard, at both Clintons.

If necessary, he should slug back a little harder.

For starters, in response to Hillary's 'inner-city Chicago slumlord' remark tonight, Obama can and should toss the names Norman Hsu and Dickie Scruggs right back in Hillary's face.  These are RIGHT-NOW cases that are even more relevant than the Lincoln Bedroom being put up for bid on E-Bay by the Clintons back in the 1990's.

The question needs to be asked:  How will these cases affect the general election if Senator Clinton is the nominee?

I like the fight I saw in Obama tonight and while he has a momentous task before him, facing a formidable candidate and her formidable spouse, he shouldn't back down.

•  Tips for

  a good old-fashioned 'exchange of ideas'.  ;)

  by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:02:03 PM PDT

•  The problem is that it's not the kind of

  person Obama is, so he's not going to be making scurrilous attacks (saying she was on the Wal-Mart board in the 1980's is an incontrovertible fact; blaming her for Scruggs and Hsu would be getting into scurrilous attacks).

  by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM PDT

  •  Well, it's not a problem per se; I wouldn't be

    enthusiastic about him if was a low-grade politician like that.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:03:59 PM PDT

  •  Well, I think if she is going to tie

    him to 'inner-city slumlords' he has every right to point out that, factually speaking, two multi-million dollar fundraisers supporting her campaign have been indicted on federal charges.

    Will these cases dominate the headlines if she is the nominee ?  

    It's a fair question, I believe.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM PDT

•  Bad.

  This:

  the Lincoln Bedroom being put up for bid on E-Bay by the Clintons back in the 1990's

  is beneath you.

  by phenry on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:14:33 PM PDT

  •  Is it untrue ?

    ( Except for the e-Bay reference, which is largely irrelevant to most of the 1990's )

    by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:18:37 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    Bill  should be hit on his awful policy decisions, not  ephemera.

    by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM PDT

    •  Uh - hello ?

      The documents show that Clinton scribbled his enthusiastic approval for the overnight stays on the McAuliffe memorandum, which recommended that major financial supporters be invited to meals, coffees, rounds of golf or jogging excursions.

      "Yes, pursue all 3 and promptly -- and get other names of the 100,000 or more," Clinton wrote, apparently seeking names of people who had given $100,000 or more to the Democrats.

      Clinton went on: "Ready to start overnights right away -- give me the top 10 list back, along with the 100."
      
      SOURCE

      Sure as hell sounds like a 'policy' to me.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:23:51 PM PDT

      •  Definition

        1: something of no lasting significance —usually used in plural

        NAFTA, "60 New Death penalties," "Truth in Sentencing,"  the favors for big copyright, and the surveillance architecture are still in place. I suppose the VCopyright stuff can be linked to the "Lincoln Bedroom syndrome.."

        by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:32:36 PM PDT

        •  Policy

          1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, designed to influence and determine decisions and actions.

          I'd say a handwritten note from the President saying the overnights should start 'right away' is sure as hell a policy.

          by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:46:30 PM PDT

•  Your entire diary is ...

  turned into crap by the repeated Limbaughesque charge:

  Lincoln Bedroom being put up for bid on E-Bay by the Clintons back in the 1990's

  You deserve nothing for this pile of steaming dung.

  by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:19:08 PM PDT

  •  Are you saying it never happened ?

    by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM PDT

    •  No, indeed it never ...

      happened as it is being described.

      We all know that contributors to the Clintons enjoyed staying at the White House during their years there.   Some actually did stay in the Lincoln Bedroom, but not as purported here, by 'auction on e-bay' nor as the wingers have continually harped as a fund raiser.

      All POTUS have supporters stay in the WH.  Get over it.

      by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

      •  Bull

        It sure as hell happened as described, except for the eBay reference which was snark on my part.

        President Clinton personally approved in handwriting that the top 10 fundraisers be offered 'overnights' - 'right away.'

        http://www.cnn.com/...

        I've never heard of any other presidents who  have had their top 10 financial contributors stay overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.  

        by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM PDT

        •  Welcome to freeperland.

          Yes, other Presidents reward their contributors and supporters with stays in the White House.

          by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM PDT

          •  Source(s) please

            by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM PDT

            •  You really don't think that ....

              past Presidents have not had supporters or contributors stay over at the White House?

              Sheesh.

              by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:51:29 PM PDT

              •  Excuse me - I sourced my diary and comments

                where necessary.

                Now you  source yours.

                You're the one who claimed that every other president has personally authorized overnights for their top fund raisers.

                Now prove it.

                by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM PDT

                •  I've provided links ....

                  no commentary?

                  by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM PDT

                  •  I provided a link to a handwritten note

                    from President Clinton authorizing overnights for the top 10 donors 'right away.'

                    Your WaPo link, ironically, sez it all :

                    . . . the Clinton administration's systematic use of the White House to court and reward big donors goes far beyond what others have done in the past, according to officials from administrations dating back 20 years.

                    . . . But veterans of past campaigns and administrations pointedly reject the "everybody-does-it" defense offered by some of Clinton's allies. They argue that the 103 White House coffees arranged by the Democratic National Committee and the 938 people who were overnight guests at the White House – including hundreds of contributors – represent a significant and disturbing escalation of past practices.

                    "It's like the difference between someone who likes to have a cocktail before dinner now and then and a guy who downs a fifth every night."

                    Again, I would like to see some evidence of another US President personally authorizing overnight stays for top financial contributors.

                    A generic and relativistic 'everyone else does it' defense is a bunch of hot air.

                    by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:18:22 AM PDT

                    •  Your "personally authorizing"

                      claim was not part of your origional smear.  It came later.

                      Now for one minute do you think that the POTUS doesn't actually authorize personally every guest who stays as his guest overnight in the White House?

                      Be real.  You made a RW style smear and you intend to continue it, simply because you detest the Clintons, not because it's fair or completely accurate.

                      The WaPo link also said lots of other things you opted to not include or quote, even a quote from a Carter administration official stating that this was not 'invented' by the Clintons, even though it was taken to a higher level.  Fundraising for the Democratic party at the time was a very important issue, because the GOP was outraising us, and 'we' needed the ability to counter that.   Bill did it, was successful at it, and you, as a Democrat want to use Republican frames to denigrate him for it?
                      You should be ashamed.

                      by emsprater on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:41:44 AM PDT

                      •  No, YOU should be ashamed

                        for equating documented facts with Rush Limbaugh talking points and 'smears.'

                        Besides, current cases Norman Hsu and Dickie Scruggs are even more relevant.

                        by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:50:34 AM PDT

            •  Here are a few ....

              March 10, 2004

              2001-2002

              and lastly, an article that I link to that will probably give you some self satisfaction because it regurgitates the GOP claims about Clinton, but if you read it entirely and thouroughly, you will see that it is not simply a 'Clinton' thing.

              Washington Post, Monday, May 3, 1997

              by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:09:48 PM PDT

  •  but he backs it up with fact

    except for the Ebay thing which was a joke.  Whats wrong with facts?

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:39:55 PM PDT

    •  Oh Maddie

      but don't you know that any criticism of the Clintons means you are a member of the Rush Limbaugh cult ?

      Sometimes even the facts themselves are just Clinton-hating Limbaugh talking points in disguise.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:43:08 PM PDT

      •  they sure seem to know all about Limbaugh

        and his talking points. I don't listen to that crap, but they know alllll about him and what he apprently says daily.  They also seem to know all about the right wing agenda.  That is because they are DLC and they do have a right wing agenda.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:50:03 PM PDT

        •  We heard him in the 90's.

          Now were hearing folks sound like his dittoheads here every damn day.

          by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:16:54 PM PDT

          •  I suppose Norman Hsu and Dickie Scruggs

            are imaginary friends of Rush too.

            by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:21:07 AM PDT

    •  His 'facts' are completely ...

      overshadowed by repeating one of the most heinous winger talking points of the last decade.

      Doesn't matter what 'facts' you use, to some of us who lived and fought during those years when the GOP would stoop to distorting any matter for political gain, hearing those winger talking points now, on a Democratic site is repugnant.

      by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, that will not fly

        I voted for Bill Clinton twice and heartily supported him.  

        But I'm sick and tired of the excuse-making and typical B.S. as are a whole lot of people.

        by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:20:05 AM PDT

•  Some parallels

  but Obama a lot more ethical than having Joe Kennedy's money and connections in the mix. I am waiting for Obama's West Virginia moment when it becomes clear that the new Hubert Humphrey (HRC) is on the ropes.

  by crankyinNYC on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM PDT

•  Obama is more sympathetic but

  Hillary will do a better job.

  by roadhaus on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:27:48 PM PDT