Bill Clinton's "Damaging" Campaign Deeds

It seems to me that maybe I'm missing something.  

Across the Internets I've been seeing pieces about Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.  One prominent recommended diary says that he's "hurting the Democratic party."  An email to Josh Marshall refers to "the venom Bill Clinton has been unleashing on his wife's behalf."  The Guardian characterizes a "scorched-earth campaign."

But what's at the base of these claims?

No, seriously, I'm asking!

I think I follow the news pretty closely.  But I feel like I've been seeing and hearing a meta-discussion about tone and tactics... without the specifics.  I hear that Bill Clinton has to stop doing what he's doing, and that Hillary Clinton should stop using Bill Clinton to do what he's been doing.  So what's he been doing?

Really, I'm serious.  Fill me in.  What have I missed?  

Is this still an echo effect from the comments like "roll the dice" and "fairy tale," and the Martin Luther King dispute?  I didn't take those to be the racist dog-whistles that many others noted, but I at least knew the litany of remarks and could see what was being made of them.

The same goes for Obama's Reagan/"party of ideas" remarks, which seemed to draw the kinds of criticisms -- from the Clinton campaign and from others -- that are really to me rather commonplace:  if Obama thinks the Republicans were the "party of ideas," let's talk about what those ideas were, and whether he supports those.  Name-drop Reagan in a Democratic primary and, hey, expect a fierce reaction.  Make a remark, watch that remark get interpreted in its connotations and suggestions as well as its overt meaning.  That seems like a rather routine part of politics.  And it's pretty much what happened to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and the statements that could be brought to bear on race.

I know there was a dispute about the Nevada caucuses, too.  Is that part of it?  What was Bill Clinton's involvement in that episode?  I think I remember reading that he said he had seen intimidation against Hillary Clinton supporters, but he wasn't taken very seriously in that.

Are those are the fundamental building blocks of the charge that the Clinton campaign, with tactics particularly epitomized by the acts of Bill Clinton, has been vicious, damaging, venomous, scorched-earth and what have you?  

If so, then I'm having a hard time accepting that judgment.

But if there has been something else said or done, and I've missed it, I'd love to know.  Enlighten me!

There's been such a mismatch between my own perception and that of so many others, everywhere I frequent... I figured I might as well draw from the distributed network of knowledge that is the DKos community.

•  Wonderingly Yours... (n/t)

  by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM PDT

  •  In a nutshell

    As a former POTUS and current spouse of a candidate, the role of "attack dog" does not sit well - especially when the attacks are on another Democrat.  Traditionally, neither spouses or former POTUS get involved in this way.  Fair or not, backlash should not be unexpected.

    Early attacks included the "rolling the dice", "kid" and "fairy tale" comments.  While none of these comments were racially sensitive or even unfair, they were made in the midst of other racially insensitive/inflammatory/ignorant/whatever remarks coming from the Clinton camp.  The media coverage of all the comments, reactions, their meanings and intentions became a confusing clusterfuck.

    Moving to Nevada, I would argue that BC was distorting Obama's Reagan comments by simply adding the word "good" in front of "ideas".  He should be called out on this.  Also, BC was very vocal in supporting the union lawsuit to nix the casino caucuses.  I would argue that he was on the wrong side of this argument and, considering the HRC campaign denied any involvement, he should have been staying out of it.  I would also argue that his arguments had a very 'truthiness' quality to them, to say the least.  He pushed a story of Obama supporters engaging in voter supression.  This story was investigated and determined to be unfounded.  

    I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out, but in short, BC is testing the limits of what is appropriate for someone in his role and he has been all too conveniently distorting facts.

    by ManahManah on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM PDT

    •  And the Obama campaign

      ran a bogus ad in Spanish.  Who cares?  Good for them.  It's called campaigning.  A year ago we were complaining when Democrats didn't push the envelope and play to win. Now we're complaining that a candidate's feelings are being hurt or that the image of the Presidency is being tarnished.  Are we Democrats or debutantes?

      It's an election, not a prom. You have to win it by besting the other candidates.  

      The campaign that whines the least is the campaign that will win this election.  The Republicans are laughing at us...

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM PDT

    •  Reagan's ideas?

      As you note...so much is the noise machine...distorting and inflating what is coming out the Clinton campaign...creating a conventional wisdom...just like the 1990's!!!

      Importantly: The ideas that Obama was referring to were not Reagan's. They were the ideas of the Republican party in the last 10-15yrs.  

      He said the Republicans were the party of ideas in the last 10-15 yrs!!! Challenging the conventional wisdom.

      The conventional wisdom at the time...1992 (after 8 years of Reagan and 4 of Bush 1) was cut taxes run deficits...and demean liberals.

      As I recall Bill Clinton came in to office...raised taxes...balanced the budget...and (with Al Gore helping by inventing the internet (just kidding))...helped mitigate the trend towards unequal distribution of wealth (all gone out the window).

      In fact....Obama is just flat out wrong in what he said and the Clintons are getting pilloried.

      With regard to Reagan...Obama alluded to dynamism optimism entreprenerualism  (spelling?)...why should it be a surprise that he is speaking positively about the patron saint of the Republicans? He is straightforward in saying that he wants to appeal to the 'Reagan Democrats' it is one of the major thems of his campaign..

      By the way...again going back to the 'good' ideas issue. (of the Republican party in 1992)  Until last week...if I had said you were a person of ideas...that would have been a compliment. Seems Obama is such an unconventional candidate he can change the conventions of language.

      by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM PDT

•  It's

  It's because Bill is successfully hurting poor innocent Obama and his image of hope.

  God forbid Obama get some criticism....

  Josh could pull out -emails saying the exact opposite. He and is whole site is in love with Obama.

  If Bill wasn't effective, no one would care.

  by GregNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM PDT

  •  Actually I'm not...

    ...trying to be arch and sarcastic (this time).  I seriously wonder if there's something I missed.  Because the reaction against Bill Clinton seems tremendously out of proportion to what I have heard and seen him doing in my many voyages around blogtopia.

    by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM PDT

    •  It's the 90's all over again!

      by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM PDT

•  You Can Find the Damaging Deeds

  The Obama campaign is phoning them in hourly to Politico.com.

  by bink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM PDT

•  People spin comments out of all context

  ...then throw childish, transparent conniption fits, get proven wrong, and then blame Bill Clinton for making them do it.

  That's about it.

  It's the hold of the Clenis, I guess. Just like with the VWRC, Bill Clinton has turned them into newts.

  by jmknapp on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:06:44 PM PDT

  •  ...

    people spin comments out of all context

    ...then throw childish, transparent conniption fits, get proven wrong

    You left out the part about being on the Rec List.

    by rserven on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM PDT

•  Party of Ideas

  Obama was merely repeating what we have heard David "Wanker" Broder chant over and over and over for the last eight years, "Democrats don't have any ideas."  This is the worst kind of Democratic self-loathing.

  Obama did not praise Reagan, as the Clinton campaign has said.  He is simply buying into the Beltway frame about the Democrats not having any ideas of their own.

  This is, really, just as bad.

  by bink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM PDT

  •  I think

    it was senator Monihan (who's senate seat Hillary now holds) who first said the GOP was the party of ideas.

    But I could be wrong.

    by nisleib on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

    •  Some of the Democratic Party's Ideas

      Civil rights.

      Economic justice.

      Environmental protection.

      There is no way that I can force Obama to value these important ideas, but I find it deeply painful that he wants to reward the Republican Party with the title of people "with all the ideas," when the Democrats have had just as many and they have been better.

      by bink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:19:10 PM PDT

      •  grr

        He was talking as much about the articulation, movement, and process (inter alia) that is a prerequisite to enacting those ideas... NOT the ideas themselves.

        Admit it-- right wing think tanks, right wing talk radio, right wing talking points and framing HAVE dominated.  We need a persuasive champion, ala Reagan (albeit mirror image), to get it done.  

        by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:29:10 PM PDT

        •  Neither of you understand what Obama was saying

            Which is not too important, because it wasn't really that deep.

            Obama has bought into "cycle theory", an idea that political patterns repeat themselves, sometimes with the same parties, sometimes with the parties changed.

            In Obama's theory, an "inspirational" President takes charge and shakes things up, reinvents the national political paradigm.  Subsequent Presidents, of whatever party, are forced to play ball within that paradigm.  If they are of the opposing party, their efforts will be generally unavailing to buck the trend; if they are of the same party, they will find themselves in a rut of continuing with ideas that have lost their luster.

            According to Obama, we have seen the following two recent cycles:

          1960-1980: Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter
          1980-Present: Reagan-Bush 1-Clinton-Bush 2

            Obama is therefore suggesting that Bush 2 is like Carter; that Clinton was like Nixon/Ford; and that he will be the new Kennedy or the new Reagan, because the "times demand it".

            This whole concept is so silly that it's hardly worth arguing about.  "Cycles" are in the eye of the beholder; and arguably Nixon, who started the "Southern Strategy", was far more important for Republican fortunes than Reagan was; and Kennedy, though a young and attractive President, was very much in the mold of Democratic politics set by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  And Obama's argument works against itself; if it's the times that make the President, then that next inspiring leader could just as well be Hillary Clinton or John Edwards as him.

          by WIds on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM PDT

          •  again, no.

            He wasn't advocating that particular cycle theory.  Besides that, your post is based on the premise that the entire theory in and of itself is bunk-- but disregard that there are very powerful forces and paradigms that came into place as described... and often it takes a transformational figure to bring them to fruition.

            More than either of the other two candidates in the race (and especially Hillary), Barack recognizes the need and desire for change among the electorate and seems most likely to capitalize on it.  With the other two, I (and many others) see a continuation of the same old, same old battles of the past two decades... and the thought of that makes me weary.

            by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM PDT

        •  Party of Ideas, Your Table Is Ready

          I agree that that's what Obama meant, but I also think it's valid to say as a counterpunch, "If you want to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for 10-15 years, I'd like to remind you of what those ideas were."  As a candidate, what you say will get parsed for covert as well as overt meaning, and when your remarks are clumsy on the surface, you'll take some heat for them.  Hillary Clinton got cuffed around for the Martin Luther King comment; Obama gets cuffed around for this one.  "Creating the internet," "before I voted against it," these things happen.  

          Sure, it's "unfair" on one level because it's choosing to understand the surface level of a statement rather than its underlying meaning.  But it's the kind of unfair that is characteristic of political campaigning.  It has bitten both Clinton and Obama, and it will continue to bite candidates forever.  

          So I'm not sure why when Bill Clinton does it it's draws such ire.  It doesn't seem like a particularly objectionable example.

          by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:41:13 PM PDT

          •  That seems to be the main problem ...

            Purposeful disinformation seems to be ok with many clinton supporters.

            Even in a primary! That is a cynical platform to run on.

            The seem to lose every single attack on Obama to the facts ...

            Yet claim he is whiner when he responds and wonder aloud what a republican will do to him.

            My answer to that is this, Hillary is sliding in the polls and Obama is gaining.

            Americans are tired of the politics of disinformation.

            by DrMicro on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM PDT

          •  because

            It draws such fire because they're being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting what he said.  

            Obama's progressive record speaks for itself-- there's absolutely no secret that Obama thinks that those policies were disastrous.  

            by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:47:57 PM PDT

            •  but it is no secret that he

              is seeking Republican votes....he is walking a tight rope...'parsing' his words.

              He is a politician.

              by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:40:53 PM PDT

          •  He couldn't attack the ideas...

            ...he was trying to get (and did get) the endorsement of a conservative paper in northern nevada. The editor probably voted for Reagan.

            Obama was 'parsing', 'triangulating', 'calculating'. In fact I would go as far to say that 'he would say anything to win'

            by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM PDT

        •  i just can't believe it...

          If you would have said four or eight years ago that in 2008 we were going to have a young, charismatic, and energizing candidate with an impressive background, who indeed had one of the most liberal/progressive voting records and potential to be a hugely transformative President...

          ... you would not believe the resistance that so many people seem to have against his call for humility, cooperation, and objective reasoning.

          by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:39 PM PDT

        •  That is a bigger twist than anything

          the Clinton's have been attacked for.

          Challenging the status quo 15 years ago was Bill Clinton...raising taxes...reducing deficits after 12 years of not just bad ideas...but bad ideas implemented .

          Obama is reaching for the 'Reagan Democrats' and criticism is wholly justified if you have a more progressive view of things.

          by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM PDT

      •  Intellectual dishonesty much?

        Of course the dems have better ideas, nobody, especially not Obama, is saying anything other than that.  

        Nor did he say they have "all the ideas."

        You are spinning his comments just like HRC.  

        The point is that the reps have been far more successful in pushing their crappy ideas and changing the conventional wisdom.

        But you already knew that, didn't you.  You are pushing this intellectually dishonest arguement because that is all you have.

        by nisleib on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM PDT

    •  Thank you!

        You've just helped me remember where it was that the charges "Democrats are doubleplusungood oldthinkers" came from.

        They surfaced in the mid-'90s (in the aftermath of the 1994 elections) among people like Moynihan and Gary Hart who positioned themselves as the "Neoliberal" wing of the Democratic Party.

        They never went anywhere, as they didn't really have any ideas of their own, and were only united by their enormous regard for themselves and their disdain for the rest of the Democratic Party.  But their point of view was very popular among the pundits, and has since been transformed into High Broderism.

        Anyway, now I understand Barack Obama better.  He's a Neoliberal.

      by WIds on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM PDT

  •  Obama said that Reagan...

    ...
    well...here's a poster on Sean Hannity's site:

    "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." -- Barak Reagan Obama

    Maybe we should trade with the Dems: we'll give you McCain and the Huckster for Obama?

    ________________

    by elial on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:35:55 PM PDT

•  Pathology of the netroots

  The blogosphere is contrarian by nature. First it opposed Bush because he had the power. When it appeared Hillary would next have the power, it became her turn to be Public Enemy #1. Now that her husband is in the limelight, they turn fire on him.

  So far they've accused them both of stealing New Hampshire through Diebold, voter suppression in Nevada, blatant racism in S.C. Note there's always a different convenient storyline to invalidate their wins.

  And oh, yeah, apparently all of Hillary's supporters -- every single one -- is a geriatric old racist with a high school diploma at most. That's my favorite.

  Oh, that and apparently Latinos are all racist now, as well.

  Notice how quickly the talk moved from "audacity of hope" to "I'm going to take my ball and go home" if a certain candidate isn't the nominee. It's always the same story here, just different players.

  by Jim J on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM PDT

  •  If you disagree, just say so

    This is not TR-worthy, or HR-worthy or whatever else we're calling it.

    Yeesh, have a pair of balls.

    by Jim J on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM PDT

•  You're right--this is typical campaigning

  in primary season.

  Dukakis tore up his opponents, Gore tore up Bradley, etc.

  The unspoken subtext is that this is a powerful establishment figure attacking a Black man.

  But going easy on Obama--treating him differently because of race--would be the ultimate insult to African-Americans.

  by wttu106 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

  •  Dukakis

    Dukakis tore up his opponents

    You just reminded me of a Saturday Night Live moment from the 1988 campaign.  Do you remember the piece with Bruce Babbitt refuting charges that he took too many items through the express lane at the supermarket?  Babbitt appeared as himself.  His defense was that the time in question, he was buying a multi-pack of those little cereal boxes, but he had a letter from the Kellogg's cereal company referring to the multi-pack as "an" item.

    Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that he says, when confronted with the videotape, "How did you get this?  Was it the Dukakis campaign?"

    by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM PDT

    •  I only wish Dukakis had played the same hardball

      in the general election, after so efficiently taking down his rivals in the primary.

      by wttu106 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM PDT

      •  What happened was

          That after Dukakis' campaign manager, John Sasso, did a very skilful job of taking apart Joe Biden's campaign, he got thrown to the press wolves.  I'm not sure why; perhaps Dukakis didn't have the heart for that kind of campaigning, or more likely there was some kind of inside politicking within the campaign that led to Sasso being jettisoned.

          Sasso was replaced by Susan Estrich who was a far less competent campaign manager.

        by WIds on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM PDT

•  Wow

  No one is even reading this.

  Maybe retitle, "Bill Clinton Shot JFK?"

  by bink on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM PDT

•  Recommended diaries mean nothing.

  Typical recommended diary list:

  • Bill Clinton is a Big Stupidhead
  • John Edwards Did Such-and-such
  • Hillary Clinton is a Big Stupidhead
  • Impeach Impeach Impeach!
  • Bill Clinton is Still a Big Stupidhead
  • Some Funny Meta Diary
  • Verb My Fucking Noun, Kos
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton are Big Stupidheads

  As a gauge of mainstream Democratic sentiment, the recommended diary list is about as accurate as divination from chicken entrails.

  by phenry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:12:09 PM PDT

  •  chicken entrails...mmm...

    by JVolvo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:32:30 PM PDT

•  You...

  are not wrong.

  The overwhelming majority of Daily Kossers, including their ring leader, most certainly are.

  by Blue Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM PDT

•  This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton himself

    This is about attacking Hillary Clinton through her husband.

    It has two upsides for the Obama campaign:

    1) It allows them to recycle old Republican attacks from 1992-2000, so they don't have to pay writers' guild fees :)

    2) It is a back-handed way of slamming Hillary Clinton for being a woman, implying that she's no more than an extension (stalking horse, appendage, puppet) of her husband.

    It also means that they either now believe that Bill Clinton is, or can be made to be, a less sympathetic figure than Hillary Clinton; or that they find Bill Clinton to be a dangerous asset to the Clinton campaign, whom they need to depreciate.

  by WIds on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM PDT

  •  no.

    It's about someone who, as a patron saint of the party (and nation), should stay relatively objective its self-determination.

    It's about Hillary wanting it both ways-- wanting to stand on her own achievements but reaping the benefits of Bill's popularity.  When someone questions her experience, she trots out her/Bill's tenure.  When someone questions that period or its byproducts, she insists that we judge her on her own merits.

    ...If the campaign would either 1) reign in Bill and keep him out of surrogate mode or 2) admit that it's going to be a co-presidency like the first Clinton administration, we wouldn't have this discussion.

    by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35:58 PM PDT

    •  Reign In

      I wrote this in a comment before deciding I might as well diary my thoughts...

      If Bill had been kept quieter, the media would be running down Hillary Clinton for being afraid of being overshadowed, and if her support started to waver, they'd say it was because she didn't use such a terrific asset.  That's what happened when the media decided to nitpick Gore's use or non-use, nearness to or distance from Bill Clinton.

      I'm not sure I'm sold on the "relatively objective" standard for ex-presidents.  I don't know when it got formulated.  I'm trying to think of examples, since the whole primary system is so much in its infancy.  

      How many former presidents could have intervened into the primary process?  There's Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.  Nixon was in disrepute, and his endorsement wouldn't've helped.  Probably that applies to Ford, Carter and Bush, too, although to a lesser extent.

      So really we're talking about Reagan not getting involved in 1988 or 1996, right?

      by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM PDT

      •  Yes!

        This is one of the best comments I've ever read on the internet.

        Someone who knows a little history!

        Thank-you. I was thinking I might be going crazy.

        phat

        by phatass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM PDT

•  It's not the attacks ... it's the validity

  of those attacks ....

  Attacking Obama's 100% pro choice rating ...

  Attacking him for praising Reagan, when he was actually reflecting on Republican talking points and their momentum, and how he wants to be part of the pendulum swing the other way.

  Taking up the failed Rezko mantle for Republicans when the Republicans have failed to prove Obama did anything wrong.

  Attacking his antiwar stance that he has been consistant on.

  Obama can go everywhere from blue dresses to whitewater ... does he do it?

  Hillary lives in a glass toilet bowl and still dares to throw rocks.

  She wants him to fight on her lurid turf to undermine his campaigns desire to run on a message of unity.

  Hillary will have a very hard time from here on out to ever claim the uniter torch.

  by DrMicro on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM PDT

•  clinton is a filthy man

  his dlc trickery worked on a lot of you but
  he was eisenhower with a hard-on.

  michelle obama showed come out and say that if one of her two daughters took
  an internship at  the age of 21 and the ceo of the company for the comp. they were interning for had them perform fellatio for him she would take  her
  shoe and smash that guys head in.....

  let that sleazeball that we all apoogized for have it in his gross ugly pink leathered disgusting bulbous nose face!

  by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM PDT

  •  Hateful much?

    You ought to run that comment up the flagpole at Free Republic. You'd be a big hit over there.

    by phenry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM PDT

    •  sorry but its the truth isn't it

      would the ceo of any company have survived what bill clinton did in the oval office with an intern?

      he should have slunked away and just built houses like jimmy carter...

      by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM PDT

      •  No, it's not the truth.

        Your level of hatred would fit in much better among the Republicans.  Why are you here?

        by Kevvboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM PDT

        •  answer this question kevvboy

          so a ceo would have survived what bill clinton did with an intern in the oval office?

          ok...u are completely blinded by your clinton dlc devotion

          by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM PDT

          •  I don't engage with haters.

            If you think being impeached is "surviving," you weren't paying much attention.

            I may be blind, but you, sir, are dumb, and I will get my sight back in the morning.

            by Kevvboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM PDT

  •  Go back to Red State. n/t

    by emsprater on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:20:40 PM PDT

    •  no red state here buddy!

      i have had the clintons before me on a ballot a total of.....

      1992 ny primary...        jerry brown
      1992 gen el..........        cliinton
      1996 gen el..........        nader
      2000 NYS Senate gen   HRclinton
      2006 NYS Senate prim  NOT HRC
      2006 NYS Senate gen    GREEN party

      in both BC and HRC case I voted for them the first time, then after that FORGET it!  i have principles...........

      by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM PDT

      •  Most Democrats' principles .....

        don't include bashing the only two term Democratic President of the last half century with a human failing that would never have been part of the public record without the forcing of it by the GOP simply to discredit him.

        It's not a Democratic thing to do, and I don't give a damn if you are a former Clinton supporter, as everyone who makes these spurious attacks on them here on dKos seem to claim, if you are Monica's mother or Michelle Obama.  It's not the sort of attack that should come from any of us, because every time it does, it gives folks like Rush Limpbaugh a warm fuzzy feeling 'down there'.

        by emsprater on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM PDT

        •  thats the problem with their side

          you people want to diefy bil clinton...just like they want to deify reagan

          i don't play those games buddy....ok...i despise the right wing but that doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie; a lot of them HATE george bush now.
          they want to throw him under the bus...good politics...we should have thrown
          that sleazeball bill clinton under the bus in '98 (had him resign) and then we
          would have had al gore as president thru all these miserable years..

          by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM PDT

          •  Wrong.

            No one is deifying Bill Clinton.  We acknowledge his failings, we just don't use them as a hammer like you folks do (and the GOP did).

            Another kossack trying to blame Bill for Gore's loss, when Gore actually got more than half a million more votes from Americans than Bush did.  Yep, that's the truth, Gore 'beat' Bush on the popular vote by 500,000 votes.  I don't think that's holding Gore accountable for Bill's bj like you are.

            I bet you think gays cost us 2004 too, right?

            by emsprater on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM PDT

•  I couldn't agree more

  I don't get it. I haven't heard anything from Bill that's really that big a deal. It's just that he's the one candidate's spouse that get ALL the media attention.  The press hangs on his every word. They know they'll get a story a day to fill the insatiable news cycle.  Every spouse by every candidate has been campaigning. Mostly what other spouses say just don't get pick up and used on cable news. Have we all forgotten the comments made by Elisabeth Edwards toward Hillary? I don't remember any outcry by the Clintons.
  Obama and his supporters are very thinned skinned.
  And evidently, by Baracks new radio ad, he's not opposed to taking the low road too.

  by PetalumaPol on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM PDT

•  hmmm.....this is as good as it gets

  Where the hell has this red-faced, angry, combative Bill Clinton been for the last eight years?
  Did Bill get angry and demand that wrongs be righted after the Florida miscount? After Bush v. Gore? After Bush, Cheney, and Rice blew off his concerns about terrorism for 8 months? After Bush's unpreparedness for, inadequate and incomplete response to, and unconscionable exploitation of 9/11? After the unfair media and GOP attacks on Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? After Katrina? Plame? The US Attorneys? The "lost" emails? The countless other mistakes and malfeasances of the Bush administration?
  Sorry, Bill -- by remaining silent in the face of so many grave catastrophes, you forfeited your right to attack Obama...

  by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton and Hurricane Katrina

    Actually, didn't he raise money for hurricane relief?

    In any event, your comment might score a point on why the combative Clinton hasn't appeared before, but that's kind of the opposite of saying that he shouldn't appear now.

    by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM PDT

    •  how dense are you?

      he's only speaking now because he wants his third term really badly...

      get it?...personal ambition and expediency....

      by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM PDT

      •  If only he was so passionate when

        Kerry was being swiftboated.

        by DrMicro on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:28:37 PM PDT

        •  he WANTED kerry to lose

          that way he could set up himself and bonnie for this latest caper

          by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM PDT

      •  Ambition

        OK, so he shouldn't do ___ because the only reason he's doing ___ is that he's an egomaniac on a power trip.  

        Fill in the blank for me, please.  Nicely if possible.

        by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM PDT

        •  YOU DONT LIE ABOUT YOUR WIFE'S

          opponent.......

          ok

          by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM PDT

          •  Ack!

            OK, we're getting somewhere.  So what are the lies?  I'd like to see them in one place.

            I'm being completely serious.  I'm not being passive-aggressive.

            by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM PDT

      •  Bagel

        for being a dick.

        by phenry on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

•  answer that one clinton suck-ups!

  by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM PDT

  •  [Sigh.]

    Honestly, I wrote this to find out information.  I'm being calm and deliberative.  Meet me half-way?

    Like the Monty Python sketch, I came here for an argument, but this is abuse!

    by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM PDT

    •  passions are high my freind

      we thought the clintons would run ina primary on their record....

      if she wins nomination....

      i will never vote republican but bloomberg running as a progressive or even tired old nader will get my vote.

      by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM PDT

•  It's because

  Bill Clinton seems far more interested in lying attacks on Barack Obama than truthful attacks on the Bush administration.

  by jfern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM PDT

  •  why do u think he pals around with poppy

    and why do u think both laura and w. think hillary would be
    the most prepared for the job?

    its this sick little club that obama is trying to break up but unfortunately
    some people in this country particularly the low-information voters likes the monarchy

    by maxnyc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM PDT

•  Obama was right....

  ...when he said Reagan was transofrmative in a way Clinton was not. From Clinton onwards it's been an approach of "govern by 51% and screw the other 49%" by both him and Bush. It was simply easier to overlook when it's "your guy" doing the 51% governing.

  Leahy's remarks are spot on: what Bill Clinton is doing is unpresidential, especially when he makes shit up in front of a crowd and says "I'm not making this up."

  I guess it depends on what your definition of "this" is....

  by PopeFlick on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM PDT

•  I agree that I just don't see the vicious,

  damaging, scorched earth tactics either. Maybe Hillary and Bill are a little more negative than I'd like. But Obama can give it right back. And it seems the MSM and lots of Blogs like to make this a bigger deal than it really is.
  I won't vote for Hillary in the primary. I've been leaning Obama for the last couple of months. I really didn't like Obama's insinuation that Hillary supporters will support him, but his supporters won't support her in the general election. I'm an Obama supporter and will support the nominated Democrat.
  But who knows.  I might change and vote for John Edwards in the primary. But I will enthusiastically vote fot Hillary (or any Democrat) in the general, if nominated.
  I remember 4 years ago when so many Dean supporters attacked John Kerry for critisizing their candidate. Did that help us reelect Bush? Maybe.

  So let's not blow the controversy out of control. Let's remember the alternative.

  by immigradvocate on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM PDT

•  What you've missed.

  For some of us integrity matters, and the Clintons have been demonstrating they don't share that value.

  by Akonitum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:23:31 PM PDT

  •  Integrity

    Integrity has to do with this meta-issue of "misrepresentation," right?  So, again, completely seriously, can we talk about what the misrepresentations really are?  I've seen the "take the opponent's statement very literally" tactic, which might qualify as a kind of misrepresentation, but I'm still trying to get at the specific moments that provide the basis for the judgment of misrepresentation... literally to see how many there have been, and how distorted they may or may not have been.

    by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM PDT

    •  No, it's not meta. It's concrete.

      For recent example:

      1. Mailings claiming that Obama was weak on abortion, and claiming as evidence his "present" votes. (See Lorna Brett Howard.)

      2. Underhanded vote suppression tactics in Nevada including the invitation "It's not illegal unless they tell you so." (See here, and follow the links.)

      3. Their claims that Obama supported the war after the invasion, when actually he supported funding of the troops while continuing to oppose the war.

      4. Their distortion of Obama's comment about the scope of Reagan's transformation of the political landscape.

      5. Their racist "slips."

      by Akonitum on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:26:32 PM PDT

      •  Examples

        Thanks...

        I'll buy the "present" votes as a case where Obama's parliamentary tactic is being willfully over-interpreted.  Chalk one up.

        I haven't followed the Nevada stuff closely, but my sense is still that the whole thing was a clusterf*ck produced by all the camps not really knowing the rules and yet trying to enforce them strictly for tactical advantage (because as everyone said in Iowa, on-the-ground organization is everything; there's the "change your registration for a day to vote Obama" bit that feels to me like it occupies the same shady-but-not-malicious territory).

        On the war, I think it's valid to say that Obama was rousingly against the war in '02 but since getting to the Senate hasn't worked to end it.  It's one of the disappointing things to me about Obama's brief Senate tenure.  It's not exactly a winning argument for Hillary Clinton, but I'd say it's a valid one.

        I think the Reagan and "party of ideas" remarks are totally fair game.  It becomes unfair when they paraphrase him as saying he liked Republican ideas, but I think he deserves a few jabs for saying anything even remotely flattering about the Republican party in the 1990s -- and that's without even mentioning his remarks about the "excesses" of the '60s and '70s or other attempts to distance himself from the Vietnam era.

        Anyway, I'd still like to home in on what it is that Bill Clinton himself did that's so particularly "venomous."  To me that's a different point than The Campaign, which enters into a whole semantic debate over who counts as a "supporter," to what degree supporters are controlled from on high, and the whole thing derails immediately.

        I still get the sense that there's a kind of transitive property working:  Bill Clinton has been a vocal part of the campaign; the campaign has at times been shady or nasty; ergo Bill Clinton is being shady and nasty.

        by FlipYrWhig on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM PDT