Clinton's Folly

Why is everyone so upset with Bill Clinton? Sure, he made a few stridently negative comments about Barack Obama. Sure, some of those comments were half-truths, or worse. But this is politics. What's the big deal? Doesn't this come with the territory?

Historically, American presidential politics have been riddled with vituperation. Consider the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Congressman Matthew Lyon charged that under President Adams "every consideration of the public welfare" was "swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice." Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, characterized President Adams as "blind, bald, toothless [and] querulous." In response, Adams's defenders accused Bache of being an "abandoned liar" and suggested that he be dealt with like "a Turk, a Jew, a Jacobin, or a Dog." Adams himself raged that his opponents were deserving of only "contempt and abborhence." Or consider poor Abraham Lincoln, who during his presidency was variously excoriated in the press as a "despot," a "liar," a "usurper," a "thief," a "monster, a "perjurer," an "ignoramus," a "swindler," a "tyrant," a "fiend," a "butcher," and a "pirate."

Compared to those "good old days," Bill Clinton's comments about Barack Obama were tepid, indeed. Of course, one might expect a former president to refrain from personal attack and distortion, even in support of his wife's candidacy. And Democrats are particularly sensitive these days to any conduct that might undermine party unity and lessen the party's prospects for success in November, regardless of who the nominee might be. So, some degree of touchiness about such divisive and destructive behavior is certainly understandable.

But there is a deeper reason for the Democrats' dismay at Mr. Clinton's behavior. The plain and simple fact is that such mudslinging is outside the scope of Democratic Party discourse. Indeed, in recent decades, Democratic Party candidates have for the most part maintained a high level of public debate. In the modern era, it is the Republicans who have pretty much cornered the market on distortion, deceit, and dishonesty. From Joseph McCarthy to Richard Nixon, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, from Willie Horton to Swift Boats, it has typically been Republicans who have dragged American politics into the slime.

Whatever else one might think of then, such men as John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry upheld high standards of public discourse, even in the midst of often bitter political campaigns. Bill Clinton is a disappointment not because he fell below the contemporary standards of American political discourse, but because he violated the norms of Democratic Party discourse. And for that, shame on him.

Comments

[sjl106]

Bill never said anything untrue about obama. Obama never went to the senate and voted any different on the Iraq War funding than Hillary until he began running for President. Obama did say the republicans had the ideas of the last 10-15 years that went against conventional wisdom. Enough of the BS and whining obamanites.

[BatedBreath]

It's not so much what he said or how he said it. For those of us old enough to remember, his appearance front and center on the stage reminded of his first 2 terms. It became clear that it wouldn't be Hillary we voted for but it would be a "package deal". And I, among many I suspect, don't want to endure another 4-8 years of him and his antics.

And btw, I did vote for him the first time around.

[StillAmused]

I'd suggest you (1) read the transcript of the exchange leading up to the Jackson reference:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/false-pushback.html

and, (2) view the comments of Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) -- an African-American who supports Sen. Clinton and WITNESSED the exchange -- in an interview with CNN's Kiran Chetry, in which he clearly states that Bill Clinton was being engaged by reporter(s) about historic voting patterns in South Carolina, leading up to the Jackson reference:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn

... or you can just keep beating the conveniently-edited version of the event to death, with the rest of the talking heads, and fuel the more sensational -- and false -- narrative.

[jhNY]

Bill Clinton is a masterful campaigner and politician, who can beat anybody running anywhere in any debate on any subject in politics. He knows more about the workings of the government than any reporter, because he reads more and studies harder, all while using a hick accent to expain it all, which infurates the beltway insiders and their supplicants in the press. If Bill Clinton would just shut up and go home, Obama could win the nomination that so many here feverishly wish to present him, only without a fight and for reasons that nobody seems able to articulate in a positive manner.

Young people, the will of the wisp of every election, need something new to be excited about. Someone to call their own. Seems like that would be Obama. He's handsome. well-spoken and commandingly tall, like a movie star playing the first Black president. He has no voting record to speak of, and by his own admission, no managerial or organizational skills.

But he would, if there were nothing else going on of greater import, were he elected president, make many of us feel as if we as a nation had turned the corner on our awful racial past, despite the fact that we continue right this minute to incarcerate Black people at a rate that would make a thinking person blush with embarrassment.

But nobody wants to think. These days, folks prefer to worship. And so the zeal of the faithful would sweep their idol into office, his capacity to do the job notwithstanding.

[Oklahomajohn]

Notice what has happened after the South Carolina primary and after Bill made his innocuous comment, implying (gasp!)that South Carolina voted this year for BO pretty much the same way that it voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988. (Parenthetically I might add that in 1988 Jesse Jackson received 54 % of the vote with Al Gore and Michael Dukakis splitting the rest. This year BO received 55% of the vote with Hillary and John Edwards splitting the rest.)

First, the MSM immediately started hyping how great was BO's victory. Then it joined the chorus over Bill's innocuous comment, thus hyping the racial issue. Why does the MSM seem to hate the Clintons? Looking back at the 1990's the constant charade of looking under every possible rock for improprieties in the Clinton Administration would not have been possible except with the aid and comfort of the MSM. Just to remind those of you who are too young to remember the result of all those lengthy and tedious investigations: Hillary was totally exonerated.

Second, why do so many Democrats seem to go along with the charade, now being given new life by the MSM?

We really, really need to come together as one nation. It is really, really important to make our democracy function more effectively in order to preserve our constitutional liberties. I urge all Democrats to make informaed decisions on Super Tuesday!

[kempis]

I agree that Clinton needs to chill out.

I disagree, however, that he alone has been guilty of overheating the rhetoric in this race. Obama's done his share, too. And until people stop giving him a free pass, he'll continue.

Both candidates need to return to some measure of civility.

[PerryWhite]

The true story that Dukakis furloughed life-sentence-with-no-parole murderer Willie Horton to commit crimes still not familiar to most Americans was first (properly) revealed by the Al Gore campaign in 1988.

[LeonBNJ]

Democrats have always fought among themselves, but now the infighting that was often behind closed doors gets a lot more attention due to live TV, biased news channels (Fox News) and commentators and the internet.
I do agree that Bill Clinton must change his style in supporting his wife for the nomination. If he doesn't change, it will help Sen. Obama and even Edwards, and more importantly improve the chances of the Republican canidates in the fall elections.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

One thing I don't want to see (and already have seen) is this race turned into "Obama is great" therefore "the Clintons are bad." We don't have to build up Obama by tearing the Clintons down.

Even Ted Kennedy's speech yesterday was a bit too negative for my tastes. I know he was sticking up for the candidate he supports-- he's ready to lead on day one, his opposition to the Iraq War is very real (i.e. not a "fairy tale"). These obviously were aimed at the Clintons.

But mostly it's the media-- the Clinton hate-fest at MSNBC with Howard Fineman, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan. Honestly, I sort of enjoy it. It appeals to my worse devils rather than my better angels. Because I'm sick of the Clintons and angry about the way they have been running their-- I mean *her*-- campaign since Obama's victory in Iowa.

Yet if it weren't for Obama, I think Democrats would be very enthusiastic about the possibility of President Hillary Clinton. Personally, I would prefer she be the First Woman President and not a Clinton Third Term. Bill should say nice things, stay upbeat, and let his wife run her campaign in the professional, cool, calm and collected way she did earlier last year.

The Clintons just didn't expect this JFK-like phenonemon that is Obama. They didn't expect the deep hunger in America for change-- and not just a return to the 1990s. But Democrats are grateful for Bill and Hillary. It's just a different time with a different candidate. The Clintons are great-- but moving forward from here, Obama is better.

The media doesn't have to bury the Clintons in order to praise Obama. Thank you, Clintons. It just isn't 1992 anymore.

[bobo2626]

I have trouble with your argument. If party unity is at stake, why is that the Clintons are being lectured for their attacks on Obama, but when Barrack called Hillary the Sen. D-Punjab( which was an obvious slight) nothing was said. You and the Demrocrats elite seem to turn a blind eye with Obama. Now, I am a Hillary supporter, but I know that Bill went a little toofar with his comments. Having said that though, I think the MSM and these high -and-might Dems who are lecturing the Clintons on "good behavior" fail to see that they were attacked first. It was Obama who said that Hillary couldn't be trusted. These maybe mild to you, but again, it seems that anything he says is OK. He fed the race issue after the LBJ-King comment Hillary made,( he even admitted his staff fueled it) but you didn't take him to the woodshed for that.
This is a very important primary race, but it isn't a definition of the Democratic Party. We, as a party, have always had internal squabbles, but we have always been fair about it.
This isn't fair.
Hillary Clinton, from the begining, has been the only villian in this race. The MSM hates her, the Republicans hate her, and (sadly) the Dem. elite seem to hate her.
If you and the MSM coddle Obama he will lose in the general election.
The republicans will not be "nice" if he gets the nod. and here is a news flash, the MSM will turn on him.
So,let's be fair. Scold him for his comments as well.
Hillary has been through the fire. she's been tested. She will win if she gets the nomination.
I really like Sen. Obama.But he hasn't been tested. I am so tired of the Democrats backing some one who thinks"nice" wins elections.He maybe be the "new face"; But, the republicans will play the same game as before.
Don't be sucked into believing that just because the Dems play nice to each other that the republicans will follow.

Just be fair.

[cewing]

I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that Bill Clinton is the most knowledgeable of all the spouses of the primary candidates, democrat or republican. The media is certainly going to cover every single sound bite they can get their hands on, good, bad or indifferent and spin them anyway they can. How many times have we seen McCain's wife? Huckabee's wife? They don't have a clue, most of them don't and the media doesn't cover them because of it. If all the candidate's spouses were given the same coverage I bet we would see alot of misstatements, phrases taken out of context, yawning in the background, etc., but we won't and that's the price the Clintons have to pay because of his high profile and the medias fondness for getting any dirt they can on him.

[Doofus]

Perhaps it would not be so wrong to reflect

that the South Carolina results 'don't amount

to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up' election.

No single state result matters much at all.

Let's get back on track. A Demo & a Repo are

going to be nominated, and baring a miracle,

the Repo is going to get elected, unless the

Demos get their sh*t together.

[RAMHaiti]

The two most divisive Democratic campaigns on record are 1980, Carter/Kennedy and 2008, Clinton/Obima.
Obima says he's not Muslim as though its an insult to be called one. Is he pro Israel or Pro Iran or pro Palestinian and do you believe him?
He's already played the race card in South Carolina and he got the "Black Vote". OJ Simpson "got the Black Vote" when he was acquitted, so, what does the "Black Vote" mean?

[DeLuxe]

I have made this same argument, albeit not as well. Democrats just don't do this kind of thing! Democrats don't typically lie or take cheap shots. And, in particular, Democrats don't play the race card. And, while, yes, we have to expect worse from the Republicans in a general election, we don't have to expect the same kind of retrograde, divisive cynical politics in our own party. The sad thing is, that I fear the Clintons' strategy will work -- that there may not be enough time to turn this around befroe Feb. 5, and that some people are going to be voting against the black people's candidate. This is something for which I will never forgive the Clintons.

[MikePA]

It will be interesting to see Florida's democratic primary results tonight. It will show what a majority of democrats are thinking absent the "hysteria" surrounding the Obama campaign.