RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
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 | Share | User Comments (73)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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
Post a comment
