What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve?

I just don't get it.

NBC/NJ: "Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?"

CLINTON: "When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?"

NBC/NJ: "On WHYY radio yesterday"

CLINTON: "No, no, no. That's not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I'm not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day."

NBC/NJ: "Respectfully sir, though, you did say ..."

CLINTON: "Have a nice day."

Per NBC News, as well as the tape of the interview, what comes through is clear:

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): "Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?"

CLINTON: "No. I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

Do I think this will have a tangible impact on today's results in Pennsylvania? Not really. Do I even think that this particular exchange will have a long-term impact? Again, no. However, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the former President is trying to do here. Clearly, he claimed the Obama campaign was playing the race card, and clearly just a day later, he denied saying as much.

I think President Clinton is as talented a politician as I've seen in my lifetime -- he knows how to connect with voters in a real and genuine way, and, what's more, plays the game as well as anyone. But this type of move, along with the statement in South Carolina linking Barack Obama with Jesse Jackson (the hubbub surrounding which was arguably the turning point, or at least a turning point, of momentum away from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama), is just not politically effective. So in a Hillary Clinton administration, would we see the Bill Clinton who was virtually unbeatable during his own presidency, or would we see the Bill Clinton who, while no doubt adding significantly to his wife's campaign, has had a tendency to say things that are, shall we say, politically uncouth? Heck, in a general election against John McCain, which one would we see?



Display:


Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (2.00 / 2)

Lanny Davis on FOX just stated that Dean worked on behalf of the Obama campaign and nixed the NC debate.

He called for his resignation.

Lanny is on FIRE today.


by njsketch on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST

Wow? Are you serial? (2.00 / 1)

Man, this Deaniac wishes Dean would just butt-out! Everything he says and/or does concerning this primary is just tarnishing all the good he has done for our party...
by linc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree - and Brazile should go, too. (2.00 / 2)


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree - and Brazile should go, too. (2.00 / 1)

and the Clinton witch-hunt against anyone perceived as supporting Obama begins in full.

Its a good thing she's not going to get the nomination, the blood-bath if that happened would be brutal and kill the party for a good, long while.


by bawbie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (1.66 / 3)

Dean and Brazile, the party will suffer, too.

Maybe no blood-bath - we Hillary Folk are too nice for that - but it will suffer and I'm sure you know that.

So either way, the Dems are screwed this year.

Aren't you proud?


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (none / 0)

we Hillary Folk are too nice for that

Says the person calling for the firing of Brazille and Dean.

Nice.

Also, I don't think you know what the definition of "steal" is.

Come June 4, Obama will have won this battle fair and square.  Any belly-aching from the most ardent Clinton supporters will just be noise.


by bawbie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (none / 0)

Yeah noise.. from half or more of the Democrats whose votes Obama will need if he is the nominee.  


by JustJennifer on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (none / 0)

You do actually know the difference between more and less right?  More is when someone has more--er, a greater number of something or a greater percentage of something.  That is something Clinton doesn't have no matter how you count or what you're counting.  Less would be the word you're looking for.


by The Distillery on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (none / 0)

When Obama wins with a clear delegate advantage, in super delegates, elected delegates, popular vote (although its not worth jack), states won, money on hand and every other conceivable metric, I believe that most of Hillary's voters will accept that Obama won fair and square and support him.

There are some vocal ones, including many on this blog, that will whine and scream and cause a scene, but it will just be noise.


by bawbie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it will be no votes, not "noise". (2.00 / 2)

And unless MI and FLA are counted then Dean, Brazile and Obama will have stolen the nomination.

Pure.  And.  Simple.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it will be no votes, not (none / 0)

If Florida and Michigan are not counted (to your likeing) and the Big O wins, will you support a Dem, or repub in 2008?


by gil44 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll vote Dem... (none / 0)

down ticket.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll vote Dem... (none / 0)

If Florida and Michigan are counted at half the delegate count (the same punishment given by the Republicans) and Obama wins the nomination will you consider it theft?

If Florida and Michigan are counted in full and he wins will you consider it theft?

Honestly, won't you consider it theft no matter how it happens?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, if MI and FLA are counted (none / 0)

and he still wins, he wins.  I still won't vote for him, but he'll have won.

Any other "solution" is theft.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, if MI and FLA are counted (none / 0)

Well, the fact that you would not vote for a Dem nominee in a year like this shows much you actually care about the issues we are facing...

You have essentially said you would rather see continued war in Iraq, and Roe v. Wade overturned than Obama in the White House.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0)

No.  

That is not pure and simple.

What is pure and simple is that there were not free, fair and valid elections in MI and FL.

If they can revote, then they should and they'll be counted, but if you take an election that is not free, fair and valid and use it to determine the outcome of the whole primary season, then that really is stealing an election.


by bawbie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But BO said NO to revotes.... (none / 0)

so then, by your reasoning, MI and FLA can't be counted.  

Sorry.  I don't see it that way.  Obviously.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But BO said NO to revotes.... (none / 0)

BO did NOT say no to revotes.

That is just a falsehood.

He rejected the proposed revotes in MI because they weren't fair.


by bawbie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama steals the nomination b/c of - (2.00 / 1)

Wait wait wait...

How would Obama steal it?  By winning more pledged delegates? By winning the popular vote?  

Too nice?  Really?  90 diaries about "the bird", stated plans to bring this fight all the way to the convention, wanting to include FL/MI only after you win and need them.  Farrakhan + Obama = bad, Farrakhan + Rendell = no big deal.  Weathman + Obama = bad; Weathermen (plural) + Clinton = no big deal.    Yeah, the Hillary campaign has been all butterflies and rainbows.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree - and Brazile should go, too. (none / 0)

Meanwhile, I suppose Ickes should be nominated as Secretary of State in a future Clinton Administration.  It really is remarkable how selective people are in their outrage and villain-making.


by rfahey22 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, thank god for Lanny Davis.  His nonpartisan views are so useful and, unlike Obama-supporter Brazile, he has no stake in this whatsoever.  

This is almost as good as his support for Lieberman against Lamont in both the general election and primary. What a truthteller he is.

We need more and better democrats like Lanny Davis.

/snark


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Lanny Davis is not in charge... (2.00 / 1)

of the DNC.  He's a partisan player and it's known.

Howie and Donna are playing games and the loser is the entire Dem. Party.

There IS a difference!


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Lanny Davis is not in charge... (2.00 / 0)

Seriously, its a primary.  EVERYONE is picking sides.  I don't care if you are bent with Brazile but lets not get on our high horse and suggest that Clinton's surrogates are any different.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brazile is not supposed to be anyone's (2.00 / 1)

surrogate at this point - or if she is Obama's surrogate, then she should acknowledge it and step aside and do that job - not the one she is supposed to be doing for the entire Democratic Party.

And Dean, sadly, listened too closely to Brazile and now he's f**ked royally.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brazile is not supposed to be anyone's (none / 0)

Hmmm, pretty sure Donna is merely an analyst and superdelegate at this point, no different than Lanny Davis.  Am I wrong?  Can you point to some title I'm missing here?


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's on the DNC and, I believe, (none / 0)

had a key role with the rules committee in deciding that FLA and MI were to be f**ked.

I don't remember Lanny Davis in that role.  Did I miss something?


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's on the DNC and, I believe, (none / 0)

I also remember Ickes being on that committee.  


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't mentioned Ickes once. (none / 0)

The comparison was Brazile v Davis.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I haven't mentioned Ickes once. (none / 0)

Because it doesn't fit the picture you want to paint, not because it is not accurate.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all. That's a different (none / 0)

discussion than the one I've been involved with.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But Lanny Davis is not in charge... (2.00 / 0)

And btw, you think that MAYBE Davis has a little special desire to stick it to Dean?  He's one of the core DLC members and they all (including the Clintons, btw) loathe that he got control of the DNC.

He also happens to have kicked ass with his 50 state strategy.  I know, I know, most states don't count though.  Right.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does Howard Dean cause Hillary's lips to move? (none / 0)

Back when she wanted to ingratiate herself with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary was very clear - those states had a special role in the primary process and MI and FL votes would not count.

Did Howard Dean use hypnosis to cause her to say that?

Please.  Dean is enforcing a ruling that everybody agreed to - including Hillary, back when she thought it was in her interest to enforce it.

Don't go piling on Dean because he had the cojones to stick.


by TL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (none / 0)

Lanny Davis.... non partisan views.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaaha!

Funniest thing I have ever read here.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (2.00 / 0)

So no matter the subject matter we should just type and post about whatever we want?  Ok! Especially if its a post that could be construed as a "hit" on HRC.

Since we we have free reign lets talk about the Super Terrific Lanny Davis
- If memory serves, didn't her sever under the Bush Admin? - Yes
Didn't he lie about his Yale academic record? - Yes.

Ahhh what a guy...I am glad HE is the Dem that Fox chooses to represent us....


by gil44 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (none / 0)

Another side note about the Awesome fire and brimstone Lanny Davis
- he supported Joe Lieberman over the democratic candidate.
Now he supports HRC!

Now he is willing to tear our party apart!

he IS super terrific


by gil44 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (none / 0)

Any chairman of the party would do what he's doing. There didn't need to be another debate. Bush likes to compare himself to Lincoln, but Dean actually has a decent claim to it, what with the Democratic Party being in a state of civil war and all. No matter who was in charge, they would be under fire because any decision they made would be criticized.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lanny Davis on FOX: Dean should RESIGN (none / 0)

Lanny Davis needs some proof before he states things like this....

Personally, I'm happy there is not, yet another debate...  I guess I should resign too...

Better yet, everyone should freakin resign...!

Especially B.C. who seems to be on FIRE with misstatements lately....


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe he's been talking so much - (2.00 / 1)

you can't remember everything he's said?

I wonder how any of them remember who or where they are or what day of the week it is!


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST

Re: Maybe he's been talking so much - (none / 0)

Had Michelle Obama said this, or Donna Brazile or Howard Dean, would they get such a pass...?


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

Interesting hypothetical question, a Hillary Clinton administration is about as likely as a John Edwards administration.

However, my guess is that Hillary would dispatch Bill as far away from the White House as possible, to shake hands in places such as Uzbekistan.


by My Ob on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:38:01 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

My sentiments exactly.  It doesn't really matter because there won't ever be a Hillary administration.


by The Distillery on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

He actually never accused the Obama campaign, he said "They" so it does depend on the definition of They, doesn't it?


by niksder on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill (2.00 / 1)

I am becoming increasingly a tin-foil-hat-wearer.  Is there any chance that Bill is (consciously or subconsciously) acting in a way to torpedo Hillary?  He was a very good president and despite some personal failings, he seems like a decent person.  

However, I wonder if he would ever be totally comfortable playing second fiddle to Hillary?  And he would be constantly compared to her and there would be a decent chance she would be as good or better than him (because of having strong control of Congress).  

This sounds crazy even as I write it, but what other explanation is there for a tremendous career politician suddenly acting in a way that makes him look like he's never run for anything?


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

I think he just doesn't understand the modern movement. That is, the internets. He was a master of the old game, but that game is passing by now and while this seems little more than a flat out lie, the real issue is the playing field he mastered is no longer operative.

It's like he's trying to play cricket on a baseball diamond.


by MNPundit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:38:54 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 2)

In all seriousness, I think it is health related. He has not been as on top of his game since heart surgery, which is quite common. He really shouldn't be trying to keep up this pace.


by grasshopper on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST

Makes you wonder... (2.00 / 2)

... I'm sort of heading this way myself. This wasn't anything "newfangled"; he was talking to someone at a radio station and said "race card". Then he said the next day he never said any such thing. Admittedly he also said odd things in the past (the famous definition of is statement) but this really does make me worry his health/memory is slipping.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is really true (2.00 / 2)

..and I think some compassion might be warranted:

We Need to Understand and Show Some Compassion

One of the savviest politicians of our generation, known for his wit, charm, and calm under extreme pressure, Bill Clinton appears out of character in the speeches and interviews televised since his bypass surgery September 6, 2004...

   Not a single one--not one bypass surgeon, cardiologist or psychiatrist--has stepped forward in his defense; even though all of them are trained to recognize "post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction." One of the best-kept secrets in medicine is the brain damage caused during bypass surgery.  During my 40 years of medical practice I have never heard a doctor warn a patient before bypass surgery that an expected complication is memory loss.  After surgery when the family complains of dad's fits of anger, I have never heard a doctor admit that personality change is a common consequence of surgery. Yet these well-recognized side effects have been reported in medical journals since 1969.

Brain damage during bypass surgery is so common that hospital personnel refer to it as "pump head." The primary cause is emboli produced during surgery from clamping the aorta and from the "heart-lung machine." This machine pumps blood to keep the patient alive while the heart is stopped during the operation. Unfortunately, this pump also introduces toxic gases, fat globules, and bits of plastic debris into the bloodstream of the patient under anesthesia.

In 2001, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 5-years after bypass surgery 42% of patients showed decline in mental function of approximately 20 percent or more.2 A study published this year (2008) in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery using MRI testing just after bypass surgery found brain damage in 51% of patients.3   Three years after their time on the bypass pump, significant permanent reduction in mental capacity was identified in 31% of patients.

(Sorry if the quoted part is too long.)


by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

I am wondering if Bill Clinton is not actually having some cognitive difficulties post his massive surgery and second surgery.  His quickness to anger, forgetfulness, and impulsive speech makes me wonder if there are some health issues there.

This is not by way of sarcasm or meanspiritedness, I look at him and really do think this may not be political inneptitude but rather some deeper problems.


by mady on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

whoops, ineptitude, sp.


by mady on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

Bill also dropped the $hit bomb on air:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/04/bill-clinton-ob.html


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Ummmm... wow....


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Yeah . . . he thought the interview was over. I don't care about it, and it is too late to cause a blowback.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Still, he is a savyier politician than this....


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (1.00 / 0)

Maybe he just was tired of the "out of context" gotcha crap that Axlerod was using to imply that the Clintons were racists and that race is why they were running hard against Obama.

Actually a lot of us are tired of that game.  The Obama folks were livid when their candidate was taken out of context.  Yet they had been doing it all along.  Anyone with even one iota of knowledge of history knows neither Clinton is or ever has been racist.  Axlerod's decision to make out the Clintons to be racist based on any and everything said by any supporter, and by out of context quotes was pure rovian...attack them on their strengths.  

Maybe Bill was sick of it.  A lot of us are.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:44:09 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, absolutely, I'm tired of these gotcha games too.  Thank goodness Hillary has run an above-the-belt campaign about the issues.  I haven't heard her once try and take a comment out of context or conflate an over the top non-issue and exploit it.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

/snark?


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

big time - sorry for the lack of label.


by quixote27 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

Oh, shut up! Of course everyone hates to see the candidate of their choice quoted out of context.

It happens all the time to Democrats and it's a bunch of crap. We're all so used to it that, honestly, complaining about it has gotten to be a bit of a crutch. As an Obama supporter, I know I've had times when I think something about him along the lines of what you've just posted about Bill.

Regardless of how many comments of the Clintons, Obama, Edwards or any other Dem have been taken out of context, Bill's statement is demonstrably false to anyone with an IQ over their waist size.

All I know is that I never expected this kind of stupid bush league crap out of the Clintons.

End of rant.  


by Hocabsurdumst on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

The press is who does that and they do it to Obama too. Then, of course, you think it's great.As a matter of fact, if it was Obama you'd be calling it whining. As Hillary said, if you can't stand the heat....


by Becky G on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (1.00 / 0)

uhhhh....talk about splicing....

heelloooo....Interviewer" "do you think that was a mistake".  

BLOGGER  WAS WHAT A MISTAKE?  Talk about clipping  

how embarrassing....

...lets just get this tiny piece  "race"  omg

this was the shortest piece, even worse than someone claiming  "he said, yea, yea, I'm guilty" and the interview claiming "see, he's the real Osama Bin Forgotten, he just admitted it" (snark....if I needed that........by this example, I would say, YES)


by LindaSFNM on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST

The biggest surprise (2.00 / 1)

of this cycle has been how badly run the Clinton campaign has been.

The second has how ineffective Bill has been.

I don't get it.  These people used to know what they were doing.


by fladem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST

Re: The biggest surprise (2.00 / 0)

The game changed over the last 8 years. They didn't.

MSM didn't take their a good portion of their news coverage from the blogs back then. Hell blogs themselves were only starting to appear, and certainly weren't influential in politics. Now? You say one thing and the world knows in an instant. The 24 cable news shows are actually behind in their coverage of many stories. Life changed, and its not conducive to the old plausible deniability of ages ago.

David Axelrod, regardless of what you think about his candidates, has his finger on the pulse of this new age, and is the reigning genius in exploiting it.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The biggest surprise (none / 0)

Times have changed. The Clintons haven't.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Times DID NOT change-Blacks did (1.33 / 3)

Stop the Bullcrap Politically Correct liberal statement.

Times have NOT changed !

Only ONE GROUP of people CHANGED ! They changed the Whole Dynamics of the 2008 Dem race.

Black voters! No one, No one expected Blacks to go in record breaking Historical numbers of 9 out of 10 for Black candidate Obama.

Blacks decided that they were going all out for a chance to elect a Black man for President.

Even among the Most Loyal Black Clintonites, Many decided to go for their own brother.

Take out even 30% fo Obama's black support & Clinton would have been the nominee.

Even Edwards would give Obama a run for his money without 90% black support.

NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT !

But the Media & the PC Liberal crowd REFUSES to point out that fact.

When you combine the 90% blacks with 70% of liberal whites supporting ONE CANDIDATE- THAT's a DEADLY Combination in a Democratic Primary

You keep forgetting. The Clinton's base of support has been the Black community. To have that Disappear Overnight ???

NO WHITE DEMOCRAT would have Survived this long!

For the Clinton's to still be fighting & only 1% behind ( without black support), that's unheard of for ANY DEMOCRAT!

Name me any other white democrat who could survive that?

Look what happened to Edward's numbers in NC & SC in 2008. Totally wiped out compared to '04 !

Why? Black people literally abandoned him & went for Obama in SC & NC

Times have NOT changed!

Blacks were determined to Go All out for Barack.

Problem is come November, that strategy is a losing one


by libdemusa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Times DID NOT change-Blacks did (2.00 / 0)

Name me any other white democrat who could survive that?

Michael Dukasis

Nice rant though =/


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Times DID NOT change-Blacks did (2.00 / 0)

Times change when people change. And you just said people have changed. Therefor times have too.

I prefer to ignore the race component of your rant.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh? (none / 0)

Stop the Bullcrap Politically Correct liberal statement.

Sweet. A freeper.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Name me One White Democrat (2.00 / 1)

Ineffective?

Name me ONE White Democrat TODAY who could have survived this long in Democratic primary when LITERALLY 9 out of 10 Blacks are voting against him or her one opponent? Combine that with 70% of White Liberals joining forces with black voters in voting for that same opponent.

NOBODY but the Clintons !

Look what happened to Edwards in NC in 2008. Without black support in '08 who all flocked to Obama, Edwards was finished.

Cut 30% or even 20% of Obama's Black support, you think he would be competitive against the Clintons ?

Clinton would have wrapped-up the nomination.

BO would have even struggled even against Edwards.

Always remember. Bill Clinton's CORE support has ALWAYS BEEN African-Americans.

But in 2008, Blacks in history making big numbers of 90% DECIDED to abandon the Clintons for a chance to Vote for a Black Man.

Ineffective ? Just count registered dems & you will see the strong following.

Any other democratic politician who has always relied on strong Black support would NOT have survived this race.

Take out the 90% of Black votes & do you think Obama would even be competitive today?

Take out 90% of Black votes, you think Jesse Jackson would have any following ?

You keep on forgetting that !

NO OTHER WHITE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN would have LASTED this long when 90% of Blacks are voting against you !!!

This is the BIG PROBLEM with Obama in the Fall!

The entire black community can join hands with the entire white liberal community & he would still LOSE by an Electoral landslide!


by libdemusa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Name me One White Democrat (none / 0)

That was not always the case... and had Hillary slammed the door on the competition in Iowa, it would not have been the case either...

She had the name recognition, the money, the connections, and the machine...  unfortunately, she also had Mark Penn and his stupidity... Throw Penn out and replace him with a baked potato and she is the nominee...!


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

I love Bill.  I agree that his health could be an issue.  At this point I just kind of look at him as being the "comic relief" sometimes.  He doesn't seem to be mean spirited about it for the most part.  I think he is just trying to help.


by JustJennifer on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:50:40 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

haaha, i agree. i dont really take him very seriously. he reminds me of my grandpa.


--++++Stay Gold, Ponyboy!++++--
by amde on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

seriously leave the old man alone... its not enough that he's given you 8 yrs of democracy, you just want more dont you??

haa


--++++Stay Gold, Ponyboy!++++--
by amde on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

I'm not sure trying to figure out what Bill Clinton was trying to achieve is such a good idea these days. He seems to be a few cans short of a 6 pack recently. That way lies madness


by dogeatdogi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST

Fashions Change, Abilities Decrease (2.00 / 0)

     Bill Clinton was at the top of his game as a politician 15 years ago. In most fields of endeavor, we would not expect someone in 2008 to display the same talents they possessed in 1992. No singer, athlete, or actress would be likely to do so.
     If generals are always fighting the last war, it's not just because they're in the military. It's because successful people always think they are smarter and have a better understanding than everyone else.
     Also, on the subject of being a successful politician, what did President Clinton accomplish? I voted for him four times, and don't regret doing so, but shouldn't a successful Democratic politician leave the party and its constituent groups in a more powerful position to confront their adversaries? Does anyone think Bill Clinton did that?
by Ron Thompson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST

Bypass Surgery Can Damage Mental Function (2.00 / 0)

Many many patients suffer the equivalent of a slight stroke and end up slightly forgetful, repetitive,and short tempered.


by bernardpliers on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

What I got out of reading the transcript of the WHYY radio interview was when they asked him about the comments he had made previously..Clinton told them to go back to the interview at the the time of the Jessie Jackson comment and see the question that was asked and his answer and that was spun out of context into something else and racist....NOT....to go back and look at the WHYY interview after the interview was concluded. Which is where this diary seemed to go.


by Justwords on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:02:08 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 0)

As much as I loved the old Bill, if Clinton was Prex during the YouTube Era he would have been a one and done.


by gil44 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Folks should understand for Bill it's personal.
It's his wife..and yes he did have some amends to make.
I only hope that after the last primary. Sen. Clinton will make a gracious concession speech and our former President can return to his humanitarian efforts..(and make a bunch of bucks if he wants)

Back around SC when the Primary was still in doubt he pissed me off. It does not matter now, at least to me. He hasn't lost in a long time, it can't be easy.
I am not saddened to see the passing of the DLC...


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Maybe Bill doesn't really want to be the first First Husband.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Isn't it First Gentleman?  Have we decided how this will be termed?


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Whatever it is, it has to be a comedown from president.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

who cares? (2.00 / 1)

funny how we are supposed to give a pass to obama& his preachers rancid rhetoric, but we must parse every word of clinton

he told the truth then backed off of it, bill clinton is not a racist, hillary is not a racist, i dearly believe i am not a racist, but it seems that branding the clintons and, indirectly their supporters, as racists is guaranteed to result in electoral disaster come november

we clintonistias, we may not be as smart as some of you smart guys, but we do loyalty pretty damn good

how does one campaign against the first real live realistic black candidate for president WITHOUT there being linquistic and other kinds of snafus...the clintons are being blamed for doing the same thing dozens of candidates have done for decades, they fight catch as catch can, and this incessant tiptoeing around the idea bubba is a racist, well, if that is how far into space the obamites have gone, it really is too late for you


by blackflag on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:24:31 PM EST

Re: who cares? (2.00 / 1)

You are soo right.  Every syllable that comes out of Bill C's mouth is dissected to the nth degree. A hypothetical:  Let's say Hillary said, "I've known so and so for many years and she's a typical black person."  It would have been get out the stake and start a fire.


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Bill Clinton has some sort of mental problem. I am not trying to insult him here. It is clear that his memory is failing him, and that is only getting worse. I think he should withdraw from the campaign.


by Fairy Tale on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:26:16 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (2.00 / 1)

This is a non story.  He's probably not sleeping.

But for the record, he was right yesterday.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

Man - that diary was removed with light speed!


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:22 PM EST

I see nothing (2.00 / 1)

wrong with what Bill said.  He's 100% correct.


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST

Bill is right! (none / 0)

The Obama campaign has played the race card since day one.


by BigBoyBlue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

I really love the guy, but every time he whines on this issue, HRC loses another point or two.  Suck it up, Bill!  

Fair or foul, the excellent civil rights rep he has worked so hard to attain has been tarnished and the only way to fix that is to move forward and do good work, not gripe and groan about it.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM EST

President Clinton's statement in SC was in no way (none / 0)

racist. President Clinton said yesterday that "They" played the race card on him. He did not say "Obama" played the race card.

However, Obama himself did play the race card yesterday in my opinion.

This is one more reason Obama will have a hell of a time trying to win the presidency. He keeps puting down President Clinton. He had to open his big mouth again and suggest that there was something wrong about an advocate advocating for his candidate.

Anyone who thinks there is ANYTHING wrong with what Clinton said needs their head examined. ANYONE who says that Clinton was playing the race card will lose my support. It is pure nonsense. There is no secret code. It is a very straight-forward and appropriate comment.

Obama might actually have been able to buy PA. If he did, the race is over. The way I feel now I will not support the clown. If I was him I would keep his mouth shut about Clinton. The man keeps fanning racial flames. Obama himself is doing this. I am amazed.


by mmorang on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:13:17 PM EST

If Bill Clinton's record is somehow tarnished (none / 0)

because the man had the temerity to advocate for his wife, then that says more about the people who are making that judgement then Clinton.

Republicans are seeing the treatment of a man (Clinton) who had a strong civil rights record, did great for blacks in terms of education, low unemployment, increased funding for low interest college loans, etc. Since leaving office the man's foundation has provided AIDS medicine for millions of people in Africa. This is the man the left and the African American community wants to throw under the bus? Well, if that's the case you lost me as a supporter.

I hold Obama responsible for this travesty. He is saying one thing when the cameras are rolling and then plays the political game as dirty as it is played.

Tarring President Clinton and Senator Clinton as racists might have gotten Obama short-term results, but I'd like to see how he does in the general election. I've already seen the commercials the Repub's will be rolling out and it proves my point that Hillary has been far too kind to Obama.


by mmorang on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST

Re: What Was Bill Clinton Trying to Achieve? (none / 0)

jonathan, just stop, okay?  don't even go there unless you want to get into obama's despicable 4-page memo.  why don't you start advocating what's good about obama, instead of making this a campaign to kill the clintons?  i appreciate it, thanks.


by nance on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:39:16 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.