Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Clinton Amps Up Attacks on Obama | Main | Hillary Responds to "Pimp"-gate »

Bill Defends His Legacy, Offers Interesting Interpretation of Obama's Words

February 09, 2008 8:47 AM

So much of former President Bill Clinton's passion, shall we say, on the campaign trail these last few weeks is not just when he's discussing his wife, but when he's defending his legacy as President.

It's very clearly that in his view, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, belittles the Clinton legacy. (And in fact the Obama campaign has put out a mailer, see it HERE arguing that the Clintons were bad for the Democratic party in the 90s.)

ABC News' Sarah Amos reports that in New Orleans Friday before a crowd of 300 at Dillard University, Clinton said the following:

"You have a pretty clear but a difficult choice in this election for many people. Two gifted compassionate public servants.  One who argues that the best way to change America is just to change the personnel, and to make a new beginning with people who have not been involved in the fights of the past --even an explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade. I don't know about you but I think the nineties were a whole lot better than this decade."

???

"An explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade"?

I don't think Obama has come close to saying that -- though probably to the former President it feels like he has.

Obama did say that Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of American in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not"....but I believe he was talking about a president getting a sweeping mandate from the American people. And that was the 80s, anyway, not the current decade.

Still, that comment, you could tell, got under Bill Clinton's skin, so much so that he started telling crowds that Obama "said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did."

("Engine of innovation"??)

Obama has certainly had praise for the 1990s and the Clinton presidency.

Surely more modest praise than Bill Clinton would make, but praise nonetheless.

I can't say that I've ever seen him make "an explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade."

"So there is going to be a change, alright, if we Democrats win," Clinton went on last night at Dillard. "We're going to change from what happened in the last seven years. But I don't think we'll make very good changes if we pretend that everything that happened in the '90s didn't amount to much."

I'm posting this on Saturday morning. I have reached out to the Clinton and Obama campaigns for some explanations and clarifications and will update when and if they come....

Happy Saturday!

- jpt, Bangor, Maine 8:47 am ET

UPDATE: As requested, here's the Clinton campaign's backup for the former president's claim, followed by Obama campaign-provided comments of the senator praising Mr. Clinton.

Despite President Clinton's claim, the campaign was not able to provide any evidence that Obama ever made an "explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade."

Here's what Obama HAS said, however:

-- Obama said he would tackle problems 'that were there long before George Bush took office. "'We have the chance, maybe for the first time in a generation, to come together and start tackling problems that George [W.] Bush made worse but that were there long before George Bush took office,' Obama said in another swipe at Clinton, who often invokes her husband's presidency as a model." [politico.com, 12/26/07]

-- "Americans of all parties, Obama declared in Waterloo, 'have lost their trust in their government and want to believe that we can do great things again. That is why this is a moment both of great challenge but also great opportunity. I think our politics is up for grabs right now. I think we have the chance -- for maybe the first time in a generation -- to bring the country together, to form a working majority and finally tackle problems that George Bush may have made far worse, but were festering long before George Bush ever took office.'" [Salon.com, 12/18/07]

-- Obama said he would tackle problems 'that festered long before George Bush took office' "The six leading Democratic presidential candidates showed up for the Iowa Democratic Party's big Jefferson Jackson Dinner on Saturday night, and five of them gave very good speeches... Obama took another dig at the Clinton era when he said 'we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office.'" [Des Moines Register, 11/15/07]

-- Obama said the Bush administration's 'divisive' politics was not new to the city -- 'They didn't invent it' "'Obama even took swipes at Clinton while bashing President Bush. He said the administration's 'divisive' politics was not new to the city - 'They didn't invent it. It was there before they got to Washington,' Obama said." [The Hill, 9/4/07]

-- Obama said problems like those surrounding health care have been around before Bush 'through Republican and Democratic administrations.' "Problems such as those surrounding healthcare have been around before Bush 'through Republican and Democratic administrations,' he added, apparently referring to Clinton's healthcare battles of the 1990s as first lady. 'We need to turn the page. We need to write a new chapter in American history,' Obama said." [The Hill, 9/4/07]

-- Obama said that health care, energy, and education were 'problems that predate the Bush administration.' "We all agree that the last six years have been disastrous for America, both at home and abroad. But the fact is that the big challenges we face, whether it's health care or a bold energy strategy or schools that aren't producing young people that can compete on the global stage, those are problems that predate the Bush administration. They're not just Republican problems. They're Democratic problems and American problems." ["Quotes from Democratic debate," Associated Press, 8/19/07]

......And here are some comments Obama made praising President Clinton, provided by Obama's campaign.

-- Obama Praised Bill Clinton For Focusing The Democratic Party On The Middle Class, There Are "Good Memories Of His Economic Policies Of The 1990s." The Concord Monitor reported, "Obama gave credit for that consensus to former President Bill Clinton. ‘He helped refocus the Democratic Party on the middle class, on getting things done, he shook out some of the excesses of the Democratic Party, because he was the right person at the right time.’ He acknowledged the formidable opponents he faced in both Clintons, calling the former president ‘an extraordinary politician’ who helped his wife gain ‘a network that was built over 20 years...There's a lot of fondness for him in the Democratic Party and good memories of his economic policies of the 1990s,’ Obama said." [Concord Monitor, 12/22/07]

-- Obama Said He Admired Bill Clinton And That He Did A Lot Of Fine Things As President. Obama said, "I admire Bill Clinton, I think he did a lot of fine things as president and he's a terrific political strategist. What we're more interested in is in looking forward, not looking backward. I think the American people feel the same way. They are looking for a way to break out of the harsh partisanship and the old arguments and solve problems...Change can't just be a slogan. Change has to mean that we're not doing the same old thing that we've been doing." [AP, 7/5/07]

-- Obama Praised Bill Clinton For Campaigning Across The Whole Country. Obama said, "One of the problems for the Democratic Party is we've been overly reliant on the courts to yank us out of some of our electoral problems. I have confidence we can win elections. A great example is our avoidance of "red states" during presidential campaigns. The fact that we don't actively campaign in the South makes no sense to me. We may not win every one of those states, but it makes a difference that we don't even bother competing there. Why shouldn't we take our message to Mississippi or Alabama? That's part of the reason Bill Clinton did well, his attitude was, there's nobody I can't talk to."   [The Nation]

February 9, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (73)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/25959172

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bill Defends His Legacy, Offers Interesting Interpretation of Obama's Words:

User Comments

American political life and the parts played by it's citizens in it have long been observed and commented upon with ridicule all over Europe, Asia and Africa.

Over the past few decades, especially after the Vietnam war, Americans are viewed generally as ignorant of the world around them. That may be a fact, but the ramifications of it are good and bad. Good because such ignorance truly comes out of the vastness/isolation/independence of the USA which enabled it to become the dominant economy in the world by the turn of th elast century.
This nature was also created and engendered by a 'republican' (in the true sense of the word, and not in anyway resembling the conservative core of your blue party) tradition of fairness and equality which your great country taught bastions of the old world in Europe.

Bad, is this ignorance because the world of today and the future is a global village, knitted closer together by technology, ( I am posting this to you from a locality in West Africa where Per Capita Income is about $2/day and I barely make 3 times that) and one in which increasing numbers of the disenfranchised/unfortunate are getting better educated, better informed, more involved and opinionated, so much so that the global roles of America's bad past and present elements can be magnified/distorted/twisted and 'propaganded' beyond reason by new and illusive antisocial enemies of global peace to even drown out the global roles of America's excellent past and present elements.

Barak Obama's mission should be the mission of all Americans. Get back to such a socio-politico-economically puritanical message that re-places your great country back heads and shoulders above the rest of the world AND STAY THERE!

Yours is really God's own country. Of course, quite naturally, paradoxically, most of you don't really know why! Most of us outside, from near-enougfh God forsaken countries as most in Europe, Asia and Africa come from, KNOW TOO WELL WHY YOURS IS GOD'S OWN COUNTRY -

It is the closest and best place on earth wherefore dreams, truly great dreams, true dreams, the stuff of gloriously stark reality, are played out in the lives of ordinary people - where boundaries and barriers of class, age, colour, etc are continually and systemically being worked against and brought down, BUT, where one distinction has reared its ugly head since the 'fall' of FDR - the CASH barrier.

The 'experience' and 'connections' of teh Clintons refers in reality to only one thing, big business and the old politics that it needs to maintain its grip on the middle and lower economic strata.

Barak's 'CHANGE' simply means - America's greatness is built on teh fact that you will continuosly fight against oppression of all kinds wherever and whenever it rears it sugly head.

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME POIGNANT THOUGHTS.
Over the last few decades, you have been letting it slip. Gone is the day when a lippy little boy from Loiusville defeated the government on a simple point of principle and nowadays, young blacks posture and follow 'role' models that glorify and worship CASH, CARS, JETS< & JEWELS!!!!

Even well broughtup downright poor kids from my locality look down at this monstrously misfitting anti-culture and wonder why black American youth are so confused so as not to realise what damage they are doing to theri generations unborn, by taking the bait of the collapse of their 60s revolution.

The more fortunate Americans are not fairing much better - look at divorce rates, high-class individual sexual & violent crime rates, etc, all down to the cancer of misplaced CASH priorities!

Yours is a great country, where Oprah can become who she is, able to galvanise this unlikely lad, who may well, if enough of you realise it and get behind him, become a symbol of global change, FDR/JFK rolled into one American gift to the world.

Inexperience? That's what the forever divisive Tories and Leftist Labour said about Tony Blair when the Labour Party were about to pick him - look what a bloody nose he gave them all!

As I said in a separate blog issue - America has a lot to thank Bush Snr & Colin Powell for - they have created a ffresh political powerhouse aimed at eradicating the cynical old-school-in-fighting-while-big-business-continues genre which capitalises on focusing you locally alone, and replacing it with a new all-inclusive-can-do-globally-aware-confident-proudly-American-youthful spirit that takes all the good aspects of change and new knowledge and couples with the power of your traditional ideas and character to avert apathy and change the world!

The Clintons aren't going to do any more than the did with their last 8 years - fiddle about with personal/compromising issues, irrelevant old-school yard battles with the blues, while teh big business continues and the hawks prepare and a horrendously worse and more illusive global enemy of peace emerges out of the smoke and time wasted to take us back another few decades!

Barak Obama 2008 America.

Posted by: Taj | Feb 11, 2008 6:30:53 AM

Whoever takes Bill and Hillary Clinton serious will believe any thing when 'is' does not mean is to them.

I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATION WITH THAT WOMAN, MONICA LEWINSKY. THAT'S THEM - THE CLINTONS OR BILLARY.

Posted by: Kizeem | Feb 11, 2008 2:26:37 AM

First, I believe both candidates are a world better then anything the repub's will throw at us.
On Obama. I can not dog him for havin a dream of change from the old ways, the old players , the past and into the future and all BUT all of this just does not happen because a person gets elected president. What America has created for itself,that, as he states predated Bush era ACTUALLY is a product of our american political system. A product of a nation in the process of growing up and living and learning and maturing.Yes in this process of evolvement there were positives and negatives. There were suCcesses and Failures. We all know that without FAILURES we have no real success. It is through fallin down that one learns how to get back up. It is only through humility that one really actually learns, grows and heals. I wholeheartedly believe that as a nation we have put ourselves into a situation where we have experienced much pain. I believe that as a nation we have grown and learned that there is a better way.That our decisions resulted in much negativity to America on the world stage. At this point in time to point a finger, to make efforts to blame, to discard the past as if not acknowledging the past will somehow take us to some heavenly place is rather naive. To disregard, to deny that Experience such as what a Hillary has would be like a rebellious teenager who goes off early in life only to come back later in life after gettin hammered into submission, a reasonableness that one learns from gettin hurt enough. The USA needs to change it desposition to the rest of the world , specifically to the middle east. This will NOT only require inspiring words, energy but more importantly EXPERIENCE WITH THAT INSPIRATIOn. hERE THEN IS THE LADY WHOM WE KNOW AS HILLARY.HILLARY WITH THE LIKES OF OBAMA TOGETHER WOULD BE A DREAMTEAM THAT WOULD NOT ONLY INSPIRE BUT HAVE THE SUBSTANCE RIGHT OFF RUNNING ON VERY FIRST DAY OF A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. oBAMA AT HIS AGE WOULD BE IN THE MOST PERFECT PLACE TO CONTINUE THE DREAM OF SHAKIN AND MOVIN AMERICA TO ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE. A PLACE OF HONOR, LEADERSHIP AND AND ATTRACTION RATHER THEN THIS AGGRESSIVE PROMOTIONAL TACTIC OF IMPOSING DEMOCRACIES ON THIS PLANET. wE WILL THEN LEAD AND ATTRACT RATHER IMPOSE AND ANTAGONIZE OTHERS.
i HOPE AND PRAY THAT hILLARY AND oBAMA WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE SAKE OF OUR PARTY, OUR COUNTRY, OUR CHILDREN, OTHER COUNTRIES AND LAST BUT MOST IMPORTANT OUR PLANET. AMEN.

Posted by: AscencionCastaneda | Feb 11, 2008 12:07:31 AM

ann429, you don't know what the other campaigns are doing. In the same way that no one knew or knows that campaigns loan money to themselves and it's normal, because they are not scrutinized the way the Clintons are by the Right Wing Owned 24 hr News Media.

Posted by: irma | Feb 10, 2008 4:53:13 PM

Bill Clinton's only legacy was
an intern in the Oval Office named Monica. He disgraced the office and this nation. He was impeached and disbarred.

Bill Clinton's presidency was one lie after another with "I did not have se.... relations with that woman", "What Is The Meaning of Is", and "Oral S.. isn't se.... relations".

I saw him the other night on a CNN interview where with cold, steely eyes, he very carefully stated he would only be a "part time" consultant to Hillary and carry out "specific assignments" she requested him to do. I don't think I have ever seen such cold caclulating eyes. It made me shiver.

Now I'm not a great judge of body language but I'm telling you it wasn't even a human moment.

Posted by: What Is the Meaning Of Is | Feb 10, 2008 1:29:00 PM

Religion affects someone who believes. Politics does that too and to what profit, it depends. It is easier to make the more educated by school and books not those educated by life itself to band wagon with someone advocating change from the status quo in general. That idea is what the activist are fighting for and in old school.. when you are in your twenties and early thirties it is right to be an activist, fight everything you do not think right and give your all but in your forties and henceforth you have to weigh and pray to have the courage to change the things you can as the prayer of St. francis goes, serenity to accept the things you cannot change and to know the difference. To want a change for something that you cannot change and wanted it badly is what leads to fight and war. Hence ,if someone is promising change and a big Yes We Can, it has to be specific or it might lead to chaos.

Posted by: with open heart | Feb 10, 2008 4:19:07 AM

No one is saying that Michelle , or McCains wife or Huckabee wife or any of the candidates are being pimped because they are not out calling super delegates or the ladies of the view saying please vote for my mom. They are doing the things we've seen potential first ladies do for years; have interviews, give speeches and pose for photo ops.

And look at the various definitions of the word pimped....'

1. pimped

1. To utterly destroy your competition
2. To be way tight and decked out in expensive stuff.

1. Dude, you just got pimped.
2. Man that Escalade is totally pimped out! Look at those rims

2. pimped 29 up, 12 down

to have been used and abused

You've been pimped and don't even know it!


3. pimped 19 up, 9 down

To go all out on in a fashion manner.

whoah that dude got himself all pimped out in the black and pink

4. pimped 9 up, 13 down

1. To take easily, without force or additional coaxing.

Ant: Thugged

Duquila just gave me 'bout $3.50 (tree fiddy) when I asked her.

I pimped Duquilas's tree fiddy.

Posted by: ann429 | Feb 10, 2008 3:03:57 AM

The version of this report we got here on West Coast showed a clip of President Clinton's speech. He says that Obama thinks that the ninties (Clinton years) weren't all that good....
Then the the reporter ended by saying that Obama never made a remark like that.
I'm so glad I came to this website and read the update posted by J.T. I interpreted Obama's speech clips the same way Bill Clinton did. Many Obama supporters (too many to list all here) have affirmed by their comments that they understood what Obama was saying and gave reasons why they agree with his "meaning". (Jeremy, Wanda, Reb, et al.)

I am sorry that so many ABC National News viewers only heard the reporter's comments and now believe that Bill Clinton was lying.

If anything, I think Obama should be faulted for being deliberately vague--five times.(see update)

Posted by: Sue | Feb 9, 2008 10:31:56 PM

The reason the Clintons will not be put back in the White House is because their message is muddled and chaotic. 1) They claim Obama is inexperienced, but he's more seasoned then Bill Clinton was in 1992. 2) The Clintons' original message of "readiness", has swerved to become a message of "change" (after they realized that Obama had keyed into the pulse of the electorate). At the same time, the Clinton campaign is one of restoration, not change. 3) Clinton claims to have a superior command fiscal policy, but she busted the budget on the micro-level of her own campaign. In the 90s, the Clintons were truly formidable, but they are showing that they have lost their touch this time around.

Posted by: Donna Schultz | Feb 9, 2008 9:30:38 PM

Why can Chelsea call super delegates and celebs and the CLintons can use this situation to their advantage, embodying Schusters comments (why issue a letter when Schuster was suspended already?) however they won't let her talk to the press. Quacking duck folks.

Posted by: Can I Get Trick | Feb 9, 2008 6:43:19 PM

If this is America; its a disgrace. Say anything about the candidates, but to say a candidates daughter was pimped out is unforgiveable & he should be fired. Does anyone comment on Michelle or Obamas two daughters... NO or McCanns wife or children... NO or Hukabees wife & his children... NO - Why Hillary, Bill & Chelsea?????? What a disgrace of a country. HILLARY HAS MY VOTE even more so now. Think about this AMERICA; if someone said this about one of your children. What would the Mother or Father of that child do? Think about it. This really has gone too far now. ABC, NBC, CBS... what is it about the Clinton family that you need so much negative reporting. I am sure you can find 100's of nice things to say about the Clintons as you find to say about other candidates. Is it that you would like someone else to win instead? NEWS STATIONS REALLY NEED TO BE NEUTRAL, not support one candidate.

Posted by: Fran | Feb 9, 2008 6:21:14 PM

God forbid Bill Clinton stands up for himself. How long before Oprah's Media Machine spins it out of shape and calls him a racist for standing up for his presidency?

Posted by: ThinkNow | Feb 9, 2008 6:12:21 PM

Wow. Just read the comments and I am amazed at the negativity of some opposing Obama. When Obama talks about "change" he's got a track record to back it up. Check out his work on ethics and lobbying reform in both the IL and US Senate, for starters. He's actually delivered more and better legislation over his career than Hillary. There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about a candidate. You know they say that "democracy has to be reborn with every generation". We've had decades of youth apathy and to cynically call the enthusiasm for Obama "cultish" is really bad. I think it's a great thing for our country for young people to be enthusiastic and inspired!

Posted by: Jeremy | Feb 9, 2008 6:01:27 PM

Obama is right. Balanced budgets and such are nice, but they are just indications of competency. Clinton did not change the trajectory in this country, as evidenced by the Rep dominance of our discourse and dominance at the polls from 94-04. Furthermore, the Clinton presidency failed to achieve change in regards to festering problems like climate change and health care, to mention just two. For what it's worth, I actually think Hillary could even be a better president than Bill, but to pretend the Clinton presidency was anything more than competent is ridiculous. He did not change the trajectory. We have a chance to really change the trajectory in this country in a progressive direction and I think that Obama has the credibility to take our case to the American people more so than Hillary, who I respect but find competent not inspiring.

Posted by: Jeremy | Feb 9, 2008 5:54:49 PM

Just more denial, misinformation and outright lies from Bill Clinton....I don't know why any one would give him the benefit of the doubt or believe anything he says....I've lost respect for him....

Posted by: Mageya Castedo | Feb 9, 2008 5:23:23 PM

Hillary Clinton is a lady who decided to forgive her husband his infidelity.He didn't seem to realize that oral contact was sex. It seems that many of our young teens feel the same way! I was a Clinton supporter who elected him to a 2nd term and if he could have ran for a 3rd term, I support him.
Now I feel that of the two, Hillary is definitely more capable of being President of our great country.
I will do every thing I can to support her.
I truly doubt that she can overcome the fact that many dislike her,
Now as to lies, Have you not been watching our current Chief make a mockery of the truth and also a mess of the English language.

Posted by: wanda joyce spraggs | Feb 9, 2008 5:16:37 PM

Is or was this country better off after 8 years of the Clintons? First of all, it was because of them that the dems lost the house after 40 years of control, and then lost the senate. NAFTA, was that good for the country? Look at all of the jobs this country has lost since NAFTA. I don't understand how blue collar workers and the unions can support Billary after NAFTA. The scandals, 8 years of petty bickering and fighting with the Clintons and the Clinton haters. Impeachment, he lied under oath, he lied about all of the women. Do we really want this back in the white house again? It's time to turn the page America.

Posted by: Carolyn Grace | Feb 9, 2008 4:16:05 PM

NAFTA was originally fast-tracked by Bush senior and later signed into law by Bill Clinton. Also, keep in mind that Bill Clinton was a conservative Democrat who promoted pro-corporate neo-liberal economic policies-policies that have helped make the U.S. the wealthiest nation on Earth with the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation

Posted by: REB | Feb 9, 2008 4:12:52 PM

Bill Clinton was the worst thing that happened to blue collar workers: how do you spell NAFTA?

The last time the Clintons got elected they did it by making boat load of promises to the working people of this Country. Once they got in they flushed their promises down the drain of NAFTA and GATT with the help of Gingrich's Congress.

What makes the working class they are going to keep their promises this time around?

This is as bad as Mitt Romney going to Michigan to promise to bring back the jobs he helped export in the first place!

Why should we believe them this time around?


If you think she has a chance against McCain when all this comes out, you are dreaming.

Posted by: Ben | Feb 9, 2008 4:09:44 PM

Barack Obama is the son of a pretty white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. Ya gotta love that. He is a decent, intelligent man, with a great sense of justice, and is worthy of being the next United States President. He is a symbol of hope in the country and in the world. Sail on, Mr. Obama! May a fair wind be at your back.

Posted by: Joan | Feb 9, 2008 3:55:28 PM

If Hillary is not the Democratic candidate, wait and see what CHANGE you will enable . . . and all of you who didn't vote for her will ruin our country's chances to get REAL, not rhetorical, CHANGE.

Posted by: Lady Justice | Feb 9, 2008 3:52:02 PM

Hillary Clinton has strong ties and even served on the Walmart board from 1986 to 1992. Walmart is anti-union and also is now facing the largest class action gender discrimination suit. Female Walmart employees charge Walmart has maintained consistent and deliberate discrimation policies against women. This makes me seriously wonder how effective Hillary will be in making change since it appears she did nothing about changing gender bias at Walmart in 22 years.

I also question how effective she will be in foreign policy. She and George Bush have criticized Kazakhstan's anti-democratic policies. Bill Clinton got a $31 million donation plus an additional $100 million pledge from Canadian Frank Giustra after Clinton helped him broker a uranium deal with Kazakhstan. In addition Bill Clinton stated Kazakhstan should head the European Organization for Security and Cooperation - in direct opposition to Hillary and George Bush. The claim that Clinton was there to just promote anti-Aids education is dubious since the Aids prevalence there is .02% compared to 20% to 30% in parts of Africa.

The lines between Hillary and Bill are so blurred it would be morally wrong to have them back in power. Term limits must not be in shades of gray.

I used to be a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: Edward | Feb 9, 2008 3:44:09 PM

Posted by: Lady Justice | Feb 9, 2008 3:27:33 PM

Please be serious, Lady in-Justice.

The Obama campaign IS NOT comparing Clintons era (PAST) with the present Bushwhacking of Americans.

The Obama campaign can make the FACTUAL claim that Clintons ENABLED the Bushwhacking of Americans, when they debased the White House, turned off the American people, denied Al Gore, AND ENABLED BUSH!

And the Clintons WOULD do so again set the stage for another American meltdown; because the Cllintons are that self-centered self-absorbed, selfish, and SELF-DESTRUCTIVE -- both for themselves and for the US Presidency

Posted by: New Yorker | Feb 9, 2008 3:43:22 PM

Posted by: Yeah right | Feb 9, 2008 3:10:23 PM

PERSONAL INTEGRITY & CHARACTER MATTERS IN A LEADER! WHY?

Since the 300 million American people ARE NEVER going to be privy to all of the nation's top information, they MUST by default TRUST/RELY on the WORDS & DEEDS of their leader.

If the leader is a known liar/deceiver, THEN AMERICA HAS NO LEADER!

Thousands of American foolishly lost lives and limbs in Iraq; BECAUSE AMERICANS TRUST/RELY ON THE LIES OF BUSH, which Colin Powell told at the UN prior to the UNPROVOKED invasion of Iraq!

TRUST, INTEGRITY, CHARACTER, etc MATTERS in a President; because THERE IS NOTHING ELSE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CLING TO!

Posted by: New Yorker | Feb 9, 2008 3:33:49 PM

I am a bit confused about the posting by Analu about Clinton and Obama's list of bills. I see that Hilary had 20 passed into law but you don't mention how many of Obama's were passed? Also, authoring 152 bills in his first year would requre him to write a new bill every two-three days. Am I reading this correctly?

Posted by: Candidobsrver | Feb 9, 2008 3:30:37 PM

Does ANYBODY think that he didn't inhale?

Posted by: bigbear | Feb 9, 2008 3:27:55 PM

I am dissappointed at Obama - he has been showing his true colors lately. The Clinton years were better for America than the Bush years - that's for sure. Obama should give credit where credit is due, especially because he benefited from Clinton's legacy in the Democratic party and the African-American community. And I don't buy the orchestrated pulling Hillary's chair after the debate - I saw his true instincts when he turned away from her and did not shake her hand during the state of the union address. Also, what's up with questioning where the $5 million loan came from? Dirty politics so stop playing like you're holier than thou.

Posted by: Lady Justice | Feb 9, 2008 3:27:33 PM

In response to the mistrust of the American people, yes, Bill lied about his affair with Monica. Busted. Should we go down the list of President's and Washington officials who have also carried on affairs? I didn't care about the affair, that was a vow broken between he and his wife. But we hired him to run the country, he lost my trust when he lied. I would have had more respect for him if he had said mind your own d*mn business.

His legacy trickled down into the next two terms by increasing the power of the conservatives. Unfortuantely, George was their answer.

I really like some aspects of Republican politics. Really. But I am looking for an intelligent visionary that can get things done, not a personal savior. The whole holier than thou attitude of the Republicans really turns me off.

I am not sure how I will vote but I am, for the first time in many years, enjoying this process.

Posted by: Candidobsrvr | Feb 9, 2008 3:16:35 PM

"You can look back on the 90's with the knowledge that the economy was headed in the right direction and the national debt was being addressed. However, between Bill and Hillary this country spent hundreds of millions of dollars investigating their "dealings and going ons." We do not need any more of this crap. Finally, in this day and age it is refreshing to have a candidate that does not say, "Sure, but I did not inhale." Bill wants a legacy, let's not forget what he will always be remembered for."

So is this supposed to be the Clintons' fault? We're electing a president not the damn Pope here. Is there no distinction between someone's abilities to run a country and their PERSONAL life?

Posted by: Yeah right | Feb 9, 2008 3:10:23 PM

To cmb:
There's a large button that says "skip signup" on the lower part of the page when you go to Obama's website.

Bill and Hillary are effectively alienating a large chunk of people. If Hillary wins the nomination there will probably be a large exodus from the Democratic party of young voters (me included). It's not that I disliked Bill, but after he and his wife have consistently misstated and twisted facts I don't feel I can support them. They should have known better.

Posted by: Trevor Owen | Feb 9, 2008 3:08:57 PM

The bottom line for me is that during the Clinton years, I thrived in this country. Under the Bush administration, I no longer trust the FDA, every drug they approve is recalled, the credit industry has run amuck with interest rates rising at any executive's whim, and several of my fellow middle class citizens have had their jobs outsourced to India by companies that get huge tax breaks. Let's not forget the tax breaks for the rich which"analysts" claimed would ensure economic stability and more jobs. Have you looked at our debt lately? I think we are overspending and wasting and throwing it all under the cover of the war.

I hear Obama talk about change and he is very refreshing but I worry that he has neither the political experience or political connections necessary to initiate real change. Also, I understand that people want change but in times like these, we don't need change for change's sake, we need specifics.

We are in a scary crossroad right now. I am the most optimistic person you would ever want to meet and for me to say this is alarming.

Posted by: Candidobsrvr | Feb 9, 2008 3:07:09 PM

The Clintons tactics are at once disgusting and brilliant. Schuster's comment was tasteless and contemptible but it has given the Clinton campaign an excuie to assume high dudgeon and occupy another day of news thereby defelcting from presumed Obama delegate advances. What's more, running now against MSNBC (recall the right wing conspiracy) throws red meat to all those Clinton Democrats rabid to restore them to the White House. Finally, for REAL news, where the hell is the presss when it comes to asking the Clintons about keeping locked up their income tax records, Hill's health care papers from the White House, and the list of Bill's business cronies who donated millions to the Foundaion and the Library.

Posted by: AntiRestorationDemocrat | Feb 9, 2008 2:57:55 PM

Why was Al Gore not allowed to become President in the same way that Daddy Bush followed the two-term Reagan?

Because the Clintons burned their White House bridges so that Al Gore could not cross over to the Presidency!

The Clintons destroyed their own White House legacy
denied Al Gore and
enabled Bush, the American Economy Destroyer, budget deficit builder and destroyer of thousands of American lives and limbs in his bush war in Iraq!

The Clintons destroyed their White House legacy, turned off the American people, and caused America to suffer for 8 years in the Bush!

Clinton in the White House for a THIRD TERM?
NEVER AGAIN!

Posted by: New Yorker | Feb 9, 2008 2:53:31 PM

Again the Hillary Campaign and their false under the rug implications and accusations referring to republican affiliations, Muslim affiliations, over exposure on his drug experience, and now this.

Hillary Camp, you talk to much crap.

Posted by: John | Feb 9, 2008 2:52:32 PM

Freakshow, what an appropriate name for you. Ain't no lie big enough, ain't any misrepresentation tall enough, ain't no lack of integrity wide enough to keep you from her, eh? Do you even realize that every time you post you convince people that this is exactly the type of support for Hillary that will keep her from winning? No? Thought so, small minds full of hatred and lies never really do think things through. That's OK though, you keep posting, you keep proving that your type should never, ever, have anyone in power that represents your views.

Posted by: Larry M | Feb 9, 2008 2:47:19 PM

"Bill Clinton Defends His Legacy"? LOL

Bill Clinton has to defend his legacy; because HISTORY WILL NOT!

The Clintons selfishly undermined the US Presidency & destroyed their own White House legacy a decade ago, when Hilary Clinton enabled the debasing of the Oval Office with "than woman, Miss Lewinski"!

How did Hilary enabled her womanizing husband?

If Hilary is the intelligent lawyer many would claim that she is, how could Hilary have failed to know/conclude that her husband was a cur with a harem of so many "other women"?

The Clintons had their chance with the American people's White House and THEY BLEW IT literally WITH "THAT WOMAN, MISS LEWINSKY"!

ABCD = Anyone But Clinton Dynasty.

NO TO STATUS QUO!

Posted by: New Yorker | Feb 9, 2008 2:42:25 PM

Obama is a son of a white woman from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, that makes hime the real symbol of hope and change. If there was no change a black man would not marry a white woman, if there was no hope a son who has not known his father will not go to Harvard, become a senator in the US Congress and the real candidate for change during these elections.

Posted by: BKMC | Feb 9, 2008 2:28:19 PM

to Diann who just posted: Spoken like a true illiterate.

I'm constantly amazed by the people who support HRC on some presumed notion of reliability, experience and integrity, and substance, then claim Obama lacks it, but curiously fail to even investigate. "I may not run to check out Obamas website [sic]"... etc.

A close inspection of HRC plans are alarmingly unfavorable to the free market. It's one thing to attempt to reform health care, it is another to garnish people's wages, who barely take home $8K or $10K a year, and force them to subsidize the cost of insurance for everyone above them. How is that favoring the working classes? How about the irresponsible individuals who make up the majority of those in foreclosure right now, with HRC's plan of fixed rates (blatant market interference anyone?). In 4 years time when market pressures have interest rates at 8, and these people are artificially protected at 4 or 5, guess what? The rest of us have to pay something over and above the true market rate of 8 to make up for the losses. So we will be artificially high, at perhaps 10. Any honest hardworking family is going to have a difficulty trying to get into the market. Never mind inflation pressures.

Wake up! You people have been duped thinking HRC is good for the country and good for the working class.

Posted by: heather | Feb 9, 2008 2:26:20 PM

The Clinton's were very bad for the Democratic Party in the 1990's. Why they have the endorsement of the DNC elite is beyond explanation.

History shows us that if Hillary wins, Democratic seats will be lost. Look what happened when Bill was in the White House:

1. In the 90s the Republicans regained the Congress for the first time in decades.

2. Dems lost 9 Governor positions.

3. Al Gore, the sitting VP, lost the following election.

4. Hillary did win the Senate. She claims campaign prowess got her there. In reality, Giuliani dropped out of the Senate race with Hillary, she basically had no opponent. Her re-election opponent was under funded. So, she can't claim her Senate seat as proof of knowing how to win.

5. What does this predict for the current elections: Two seats in the Congress were just now won by Republicans when campaigns linked the Dem contenders to Hillary.

It will happen again in this election too, if Hillary wins.

Posted by: Matt | Feb 9, 2008 1:45:09 PM

How are you able to check out Obamas website to read about his policies/thoughts on change etc. I was interested so I went to his webiste. You have to actually sign up as a "supportor" to even get on his website. I did not want to "sign up" before I read more. Not Hillary's. I was able to read everything I wanted to know about her policies before signing on my support. Check it out if you don't believe me. I did not like that about Obamas website. I would recommend that they change that. Let me know if I missed something and there is a way to bi-pass the sign-up. I am a Hillary supportor but would love to hear/read Obamas ideas as well.

Posted by: cmb | Feb 9, 2008 1:24:31 PM

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress , but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it–the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more."

Posted by: Analu | Feb 9, 2008 12:55:45 PM

Thanks for reporting the truth. As a former supporter of the Clintons, I have been infuriated by the lies. They range from small spins to outright misrepresentations, and we need the media to separate truth from fiction. No one should be able to win an election that way.

Posted by: Susan | Feb 9, 2008 12:55:45 PM

From John Zogby:

"Democrats have a few very important choices too. Will this be 1932 and a chance to elect an historic candidate with an historic mission for change? That could be either the first woman or the first African American. Also, Democrats have an opportunity to turn this into a new New Deal, or a similar 1980 Reagan moment. Each of those cases offered a package for change with a new kind of vision. I have said elsewhere that Franklin Roosevelt did not have a New Deal until after his campaign. That came after he read the will of the moment, and that came after the election.

On the other hand, will Democrat race degenerate into a repeat of 1968? That year, supporters of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, who were very opposed to the war in Vietnam, refused to warm up to party nominee Hubert Humphrey. Their lukewarm support cost Humphrey the election, and helped to elect Nixon by one point.

Now we will turn to some demographics. Each candidate has created a coalition, and they are revealed in Tuesday’s exit polls.

- For Clinton, it’s older women, Hispanics, and the oldest voters.

- For Obama, it’s the very young, African Americans, liberals, and college educated voters. Obama also now gets 40% of the white male vote."

My opinion:
Voting for Clinton might alienate a group that will be relevant for the next 40 years.

Posted by: nadeem | Feb 9, 2008 12:42:18 PM

TF--

I am a political junkie and watch everything from Hardball, to Fox news, to C-Span, to the Daily Show. You might be interested to know that Tucker Carlson, Peggy Noonan (speech writer for Reagan), and Pat Buchanan (for Pete's sake) have all made admiring and salutary comments about Obama. No, I don't believe he need to change his style. He already has more Republican support than Hillary does, though she does have Rush Limbaugh's support (who offered to raise money for her because he believes her nomination would "unite" the Republican party).

"(Obama) is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country." George Will

"The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness." David Brooks

Posted by: Republican Appeal? | Feb 9, 2008 12:20:12 PM

For the sake of the Party, Bill has to keep quiet. I can smell the Party being divided into two parts. This will not help any Dem Candidate to win come November.

Posted by: Peace | Feb 9, 2008 12:13:34 PM

The link to the flyer you provide, apart from being factually accurate however incendiary it might be, is unlike any flyer or campaign material I have seen used in the Obama campaign. I have been volunteering when I can in my state, and though this was supposedly only sent in the Alaska market (not mine), the production quality of this flyer makes me seriously question its authenticity.

Posted by: Occasional Obama Volunteer | Feb 9, 2008 12:05:44 PM

There is no miracle about Mr. Clinton's success. He just rode on the wave of economic recovery created by Mr. Reagan and his administration. Keynesian economics embraced by Mrs Clinton has crashed during 1970's. It was useless against stagfration. It was a return to simple economic principles by Mr. Reagan that put America to the path to economic recovery. Do not put too much credit to Mr. Clinton. I am voting for Mr. Obama because of he is the right guy. Also because he does not advocate stupid stuff like freezing interest rates and invoking a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.

Posted by: Georgee | Feb 9, 2008 11:57:33 AM

When I hear Bill Clinton lie like that, I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat. I do not want someone so dishonest representing me any more in the White House.

Posted by: Vote4BO | Feb 9, 2008 11:57:25 AM

There is no miracle about Mr. Clinton's success. He just rode on the wave of economic recovery created by Mr. Reagan and his administration. Keynesian economics embraced by Mrs Clinton has crashed during 1970's. It was useless against stagfration. It was a return to simple economic principles by Mr. Reagan that put America to the path to economic recovery. Do not put too much credit to Mr. Clinton. I am voting for Mr. Obama because of he is the right guy. Also because he does not advocate stupid stuff like freezing interest rates and invoking a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.

Posted by: Georgee | Feb 9, 2008 11:56:36 AM

One thing I am very clear with is that Obama's style can only make him win the nomination.

He cannot win the general election unless he changes his style.

After he made his comment on Regan, some of the GOP candidates told him straight ' You are no Reagan'. Bill had not made any comment then.

The second thing is ' Why did he put Bill and Nixon together in his statement?'. He could have used Bush and Clinton. Why did he go all the way to Nixon ( whom we all know caused a lot of embarassment among the GOP).

There is a saying ' To thyself be true'. Obama knows the intention of his remarks and already there is a great arrogance in his team where they believe they do not need Bill's support in the general elections. The fall will be really great.

I guess after Novemeber, the whole process will be left to History and political students to argue and delibrate on.

Posted by: TF | Feb 9, 2008 11:55:42 AM

Freak Show-- (don't look at me, you chose the name)

Just because you spit the word ""cult" as often as you can, does not make it so. Obama has an articulate, intelligent following from all socioeconomic levels. It's frustrating to see a swell of support for the candidate whom you don't support, but GROW UP. I am a white woman who makes under 50k a year, and I am in my late 30's-- by all the political parsing I should pumping my fist for Hillary somewhere. I am not. But unlike many of the Hillary enthusiasts on these boards, I refuse to stoop to the level of ad hominems and vilifying her. She has a lot to offer-- Obama has more. Obama has a 59 page policy outline downloadable from his website which is about as much detail as any voter is willing to read. For all you convinced that he is pure oratory and nothing else, read his policy, then you will have to amend your comments. He, like Hillary, has democratic ideas in healthcare, education, and on the economy that will propel us forward in a positive direction. Unlike Hillary, he has the motivational skill, sheer eloquence, affability, and lack of controversy that will be necessary to motivate voters in the general election and beat the Republicans. Again, there are many things they have in common but in those they don't Obama wins every time: his consistency and ethical stance on the war, his ability to inspire rather than polarize the two-parties, and his 11 years of legislative experience.

Posted by: Hope and Change in 59 pages | Feb 9, 2008 11:33:15 AM

Hi JPT.

You really are something. Bringing subtle niggly issues like these is commendable to say the least. Thanks!

Obama's statement is meant to project his candidature in the image that he views his poposed impact. Revolutionary! To the present electorate (barely just) Ronald Reagan is the closest non-partisan, neutrals, undecideds, dispassionates, and peripherals choice of revolutionary, in memory. He wont start talking of JFK or FDR will he.

Clinton is not perceived as unilaterally positively as Reagan is by Americans and that's a fact. Perhaps if Bill had made a few movies, that might have changed.

So, Barak is making a very cool and calculated play at republican as well as democratic subconcious minds with that statement and it cant be read in anyway as a slight on Clinton's achievements as President.

I think it's true (and Bill's reactions show)that the Clintons are trying to play a more cynical hand than Obama. It may well backfire, as long as Obama keeps his cool. Unfortunately, they may go so far that an Obama/Clinton ticket is impossible.

Well, Barak might just call on John McCain then. Now that's what I call revolutionary! An unbeatable pair!

And won't Hollywood and Americans just love it?

Posted by: Taj | Feb 9, 2008 11:32:44 AM

The Clintons are paranoid, perhaps understandably so from events in the 90's. It's a serious issue.

I expect Bill believes what he said about Barack, even though it's clearly untrue. Hillary went ballistic when Michelle said 'If you can't run your own house, then you can't run the White House" - although Michelle was clearly talking about the challenge of being a working parent. (Support for working mothers, and families in general, is her big issue.)

Hillary snapped her head and glared at Biden in one debate for something he said that she obviously took the wrong way, and he just as obviously didn't intend that way.

Or, perhaps the Clintons just assume everyone talks in 'code words' the way they do?

Whatever the reason, I don't want those sorts of assumptions to permeate the White House. Too much like Nixon being suspicious of everyone, including supposed friends!

I'm suggesting naivete be the order of the day, but Assume Good Faith is a pretty good place to start.

Posted by: Tom J | Feb 9, 2008 11:25:36 AM

You know who's really creepy? These angry women who support Hillary solely because of gender, as if that matters more than her record, more than whether she lies about her reasons for supporting the war, or even whether she can win. Talk about a cult! What would you call people who think the most important thing in the world is to nominate a woman, even if poll after poll shows she's the weaker candidate?

Posted by: dave | Feb 9, 2008 11:15:55 AM

It's obvious what he is talking about. Obama has consistently said things about the 90s that, at the very least, sounded negative.

He said that in the 90s, the Republicans were the party of ideas.

He said that we should not fight the battles of the 90s anymore.

He said that we should not build a bridge back to the previous century (and obvious reference to a Bill Clinton campaign slogan).

He has said that Reagan had a more lasting legacy than Bill Clinton.

It's hard to not get the impression that Obama thinks negatively about the 90s.

It's also entire possible that Obama is trying to get under Bill's skin, and get reporters like you to call Bill a meanie when he gets upset about it.

Posted by: Frank | Feb 9, 2008 10:50:45 AM

Ah -- the slimy Clintons. Somethings never change.

Why in the world would any thinking person believe anything that the crooked couple say? Better yet, why doesn't some enterprising reporter revisit the many lies and half-truths that these scoundrels have uttered along the way. The subsequent news report could easily displace a whole evenings of inane reruns.

Oh yeah -- and Bill's legacy is fabricated in light of the fact that 3/4 of his administration was under a Republican congress. He was very inept when it came to pressing his own agenda -- whatever that was. Can anybody think of something he pushed through by himself. Even during this first two years when Democrats ruled the legislature? Come on reporters. Investigate!

Posted by: Surelock Homes | Feb 9, 2008 10:43:36 AM

Go Bill, How's Monica? American's forgive but they don't forget. Moreover old habits don't fade away and a deceitful person will always do or say anything to survive. Poor White House, imaging Bill without a job, watch out female interns.

Posted by: Ralph Simpson | Feb 9, 2008 10:39:32 AM

"I seen what he did in Chicago. He spent most of his time selling his 2 books. Dealing with Rezko. Oh he walked up the streets with Rezko as a activist stealing money from the poor."
Considering one of his books was published in 2006, while he was serving in Washington, and the other had been out of print for years before he was elected to the Senate, this is impossible. Rezko donated money to his campaign, but had little else to do with Obama.

"I want some facts."
And yet you speak lies.

Posted by: Tom Oldani | Feb 9, 2008 10:35:46 AM