Shut up Bill!! I want to hear from Hillary

When I think of Bill Clinton and his team of DLC pro-corporate hacks getting back into power - not just of this country, but of the Democratic party that we have been fighting so hard to reform - it just makes me seethe with anger.  I can't help it.  Mainly for that reason, I have been for either Edwards or Obama for several months now.  I am now supporting Obama because I love his campaign and I think he is our best chance to keep the Democratic Party from falling back under control of those hacks.

BUT.....  

There is a chance that Hillary Clinton could be our nominee.  A really good chance.  I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to post an angry comment that says:

I'll never vote for her in November!

But I know I will.  Of course I will.  After the last 7 years when we've all said we'd prefer a potted plant over the current pResident - and meant it!!! - how could I possibly turn down a chance to elect someone who is considerably better than a potted plant?  And though I can't imagine lifting a finger for HRC for any other reason than flicking the lever on election day, I imagine I'll get over my frustration and sadness and campaign for her too.  We have to get the White House into Democratic hands - no matter how poor a Democrat we think they may be.

However, how bad of a Democrat is Hillary?  There are things about her that piss me off.  She takes way too much money from corporate lobbyists.  That is probably the most painful thing about her to me and many here.  Because of this, it is hard to trust that she will do anything to make the kind of large-scale changes this country needs on health care, energy, corporate reform, etc.  Her positions on Iraq and Iran are dangerously hawkish - though part of me hopes she is merely pandering to voters who would unfairly deem her as soft on national security because she is a Democrat and a woman.  (Did you get that - I'm hoping she's just pandering to get elected!  What a crazy system we have.)

However, I want to believe very badly that Hillary is a better Democrat and would be a much better President than her husband.  The NYTimes editorial board endorsed Hillary today, which, as an Obama supporter, I find quite depressing, if not unexpected.  And while I think they offer some pretty simplistic even unfair criticisms of Edwards and Obama, they do offer a good case for Hillary.  I want to hear more about this Hillary.  I need to hear more about this Hillary.  If she does go on to win most of the states on SuperTuesday (as the polls now suggest), its a reality we may have to start getting used to.

And it would be a hell of a lot easier if her goddamned husband would shut the hell up.  If one thing comes out of this primary, it is that Bill Clinton has put the finishing touches on his legacy with many in the progressive community, including me, and it ain't good.  This South Carolina primary has been ugly.  And I don't like the fact that Hillary has remained quiet and let Bill Clinton do what he has done.  I want Hillary to step back out in front of this campaign and lead.  That starts with shutting her husband up and offering a positive vision for where she will lead this country and our party.  I'm not so sure she can do it.  But I'd like to see that campaign.  It would bring out the best in all of our candidates and make us stronger as a party heading into November.

Hillary, if you want to lead this country next year, then start by re-taking the lead of your campaign this year.  I think you are better than your campaign has shown and certainly better than your husband.  

I'm supporting Barack Obama because I think he would be the best leader for our country and party.  But Hillary could be a great leader too if she can separate herself from the past instead of trying to depend on it.

•  I'm a bit surprised you think Obama

  is more anti-corporate.  Aside from his vows to reform lobbying, I'm not aware of any concrete policy proposals that suggest he'd go after corporations ("close loopholes" doesn't rise to the level of specificity I'm looking for).

  by burrow owl on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:30:31 AM PDT

  •  He has not hammered this issue

    But what he has hammered very effectively is a reform of government that would make it much more open and, hopefully, much harder for corporations to exert the kind of back-room influence they have now.  I believe that is one of Obama's greatest strengths.  He may not be as anti-corporate as Edwards, but I believe he'll do a good job of limiting the ability corporations have in influencing policy decisions.

    by TheC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:32:05 AM PDT

•  This has gone too far

  I don't want the damage done in South Carolina to be irreversible.  I like a spirited campagin and glad we have 3 strong candidates competing, but Bill Clinton is fundamentally damaging this party and, possibly, the chances of getting a Democratic President in 2009.  Hillary needs to put a stop to it.

  by TheC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:30:32 AM PDT

  •  Co-presidency

    One of my primary objections to Hillary's candidacy is her co-president Bill.

    Now, I supported and voted for Bill.  I thought he was a pretty good president.

    But folks, let's face it.  As 'disciplined' as Hillary is, is exactly how undisciplined Bill is, most especially regarding his personal behavior.  During this campaign, he is demonstrating a remarkable lack of self-control, which IMO is damaging his wife's candidacy.  Frankly, knowing his history, I don't expect him to suddenly find religion about self control.  

    Coming off the heals of this disastrous Bush administration, I don't think we need another 4-8 years of distractions caused by Bill's narcissistic behaviors.  We need someone who will put his head down, and do the work of governance.  I simply do not want Bill back in the White House, even in a supporting role.

    If Hillary wants to run on her husband's record, she has to run on ALL of it.  

    by pvlb on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:35:14 AM PDT

•  Shut up Bill and Hillary.

  We want to hear the real Progressive candidates.

  by Dopeman on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:39:01 AM PDT

  •  I don't think holding hands and singing is needed

    I think a primary campaign should be heated.  Its about how to change your own party.  Its really the only way to change your own party.  But right now, things have gotten almost scary.  And, I truly blame Bill.  However, by extension, it leads to blaming Hillary.  I don't think she wants that.  I hope she doesn't want that.  She needs to be that "change agent" she claims she can be and that means changing the party to something better than Bill Clinton's party.

    by TheC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:41:49 AM PDT

    •  Hillary Does Want It

      It was widely reported on the Sunday before the NH primary that Hillary herself had taken charge of her own campaign.

      The Clintons are bound at the hip, and everything WRC has done these past few weeks has been carefully orchestrated with Hillary.

      It's appalling. Cynical. Manipulative. And not good the Democratic party and down-ticket candidates. But it's the game that the Clintons know how to play too well.

      by Empower Ink on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:50:30 AM PDT

•  This is my take on it

  (and no -- I'm not a psychiatrist)

  I think Hillary is letting Bill do the dirty work as a form of payback.  After all the crap she put up with from him, let him screw up his legacy.  But once she gets in the White House, Bill will be lucky if he gets to sit in the gallery during her SOTU address.  She'll ignore him and he can skulk up in Harlem.  

  Revenge is a dish best served cold, and I think Hillary has had this on ice for a while.  She gets to be president, he gets nothing but a big blot on his reputation.  

  by Deena on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:43:42 AM PDT

  •  Maybe, but its a dangerous strategy

    It is hurting Bill Clinton for sure, but it may cost her too.  Even if she becomes the nominee in spite (or because) of this ugliness, what this does to her general election campaign is cloudy.  

    by TheC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:47:58 AM PDT

    •  no, she needs him.

      they are a team. i very much dislike what bill has done; we were quite proud of the quality of our candidates until hillary lost iowa.
      i will be interested to see what happens to her supporters and undecideds if bill back off and we see her being savaged by the republican candidates. myself, i felt an incipient outrage at their relish; i suspect that if (if!) she's the nominee, everybody will rally round in order to wipe the truly terrifying smile off the face of that demented geriatric warmonger mccain.

      by carlyle4 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:52:14 AM PDT

•  I wouldn't be quite so harsh

  about Bill's record as President, but I agree with the sentiment in this diary -- Hillary is the candidate. We should hear from her and very little from Bill. George Bush's dad supportive but largely uninvolved during his son's primary campaign -- that should have been how Bill played it. Smooze a lot with people who come to Hillary's events, get his picture taken, intoduce her as the speaker with nice words, give chatty interviews and talk about her virtues and her caring and her character and about the issues all the Democratic candidates want to push forward. Fine and good.

  That is not what he has done. People want to know what she is about and how she will campaign. This isn't really about him.  

  by global citizen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:46:07 AM PDT

  •  It's almost sad to see Bill's "look at me,

    look at me, America." He reminds me of a 5 year old at his little sister's dance recital trying to get all the attention when Mom and Dad are taking pictures of her in her group. I think he's just got to be the center of attention.  It made for a great candidate, but not such a great candidate's spouse. He's become SO obnoxious!

    by sailorMS on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM PDT

•  Shouldn't You Be Directing

  your misguided anger at CNN!?

  Bill said one thing.

  CNN is the one who's been playing it...over...and over...and over...trying to convince you that he's on some sort of attack.

  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.

  (starting to see what I mean?)

  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over. Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over. Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over. Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over. Over and over.  Over and over.  Over and over.

  by Detroit Mark on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:50:40 AM PDT

•  How did that work out for Kerry? n/t

  by le sequoit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:58:01 AM PDT

•  The NYT folks KNOW Hillary

  I know people who know HRC extremely well, and are very discreet and will never share the tiniest bit of gossip.

  But these people themselves are nice, intelligent, progressive people, and I think the fact that they are so loyal to her and seem to really like here is evidence for the possibility that, in private, she's a great candidate.

  And it could be that the top level people at the New York Times who are socializing with HRC "on background," when she's in New York to relax a little and isn't in gladiator politician mode, also see a great person.

  I do think it would be great if HRC, Bill and Obama could all just pull back. They've shown they are enough about the primaries to ruffle some feathers, and that's fine and great, but now I definitely would like to see them talking about their ideas for making things better.

  by sclminc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:25:59 AM PDT

  •  Would this be the same NYTimes...

    ...that delayed telling Americans about Bush administration wrongdoing until after the 2004 elections?

    If the Times had a record of integrity rather than a record of supporting a malignant status quo, I would be more receptive to its opinion of candidates.

    by Deep Harm on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:00:41 AM PDT

    •  There are different parts of the NYT

      If it's true that the Bush Rovie Vigueries have infiltrated the Times, then that's probably happening somewhere at the level of the news story assignment editors, or one or two levels above that, not on the opinion page staff.

      If the NYT sometimes comes out with editorials Shadows like, that's great, but it's icing on the cake.

      What the Shadows really care about is spiking news stories, and story spikers probably don't have much regular contact with the opinion page type people.

      In a way, the best thing for the Shadows would be if the NYT had a hard left opinion page but then exercised complete control over spiking news articles.

      That way, people would say things like, "Look how liberal the Times is. If any paper would cover the Sibel Edmonds stuff if there was any meat there, it would be the Times." And, meanwhile, as the NYT opinion page Greens were writing socialist editorials, the Shadow assignment editors would be asking the investigative reporters "to get more named sources for that Edmonds article" for the 356th day in a row....

      by sclminc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:32:06 AM PDT

•  2 Years Wasted in the White House

  Let's face it, Bill Clinton lost two years of his Presidency because of a lie - along with his legacy and an opportunity to move forward Democratic policies during the two long years of his impeachment mess.  His inability to tell the truth is very relevant in this Presidential debate especially since it appears that he's going have a leading role in Hillary's campaign and administration.

  The attacks, rumors and innuendo in this diary entry demonstrate that he's up to his old tricks.  

  We simply can't have another Clinton time bomb go off when we have a Democrat in the White House and a majority in Congress.  We need a president who can guaranty a full four year term and not be so divisive that they don't accomplish anything when in office.

  by Thutmose on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:30:21 AM PDT