So Which Is It Barack? Change or More of the Same? And Then There's Andrea Mitchell!

The Democratic race is bound to be a heated one. But isn't attempting to muzzle Bill Clinton by implying that he is going to influence a Hillary presidency or that it is somehow unseemly for a past president to support his wife, politics as usual? Is Michelle Obama going to be demure and uninvolved until November? From past comments, that looks highly doubtful. Let's recall an interview with the potential First Lady in which she was asked if she and her husband were running together. She replied:

"We are. We are... Whenever you are running, a candidate, their family is running, too. We're feeling all the bumps and the bruises. Our lives are turned around. We're making the sacrifices."

But it's not OK for Bill Clinton to "make the sacrifices"? If he does, he's interfering. If he doesn't, he's accused of trying to undermine his own wife's campaign by indifference. In fact, we may have found the arena where there's a male equivalent of the woman's thin pink line, a blue thin line - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Is what's fair and expected for one spouse prohibited to the other because he was once president? Are we slipping into those subtle, deniable gender differences only this time advantage to the female spouse and thereby to her husband? And what a good strategy it is, too, as it would be unseemly for Hillary or Bill to counter Michelle's remarks.

Fair or unfair, the anti-Bill theme is catching on. Andrea Mitchell had a field day with it yesterday. Under the guise of "news" on NBC Nightly News, she was once again provided carte blanche for a long anti-Clinton diatribe focusing on Bill Clinton's involvement in the race. NBC and Brian Williams should be ashamed of that blatant editorializing. She gave next to no time to Clinton's compliments to Barack Obama. How about a GE bright sign on her forehead next time - "EDITORIAL!"

In the first few seconds Mitchell used the phrases "seeming to long for the days when he was the candidate," "his job this time designated hitter for his wife, attacking Barack Obama so she doesn't have to." Then, after a few more slights, she reported President Clinton "refused" to do what he was told by Senators, not that he instead chose to support his wife. Mitchell only showed a choppy bit of Clinton's praise of Obama, followed by the comment, "but that's an exception." This kind of attack journalism in the midst of a supposed news program is despicable no matter the target.

Listen, getting Bill out by demeaning him if he challenges his wife's competition or Obama choosing to address the other man instead of the female candidate are clever strategies and ones that might work with some people. But they're cheap. And it leaves me wondering if Barack Obama really is all about change after all and whether doing this type of thing is the only way he can deal with the heat in the political kitchen.

More on PoliticsDoc

Comments

[Myrrhis]

"Guise" of news?

It must be news to you that other people, even women (gasp!) view the former president's attacks on Obama, especially his blatant lies (Yeah, he heard a private discussion during a march through a casino), as shameful.

And it's not just us grunts on the ground who see it that way, but leaders in the Democratic party continue to tell Bill that he has crossed the line. Does he listen, no, he just takes a new direction: "I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight." Oh, yes, and he is soooooooo above it all.

He is past it, she is past it, and like so many former stars they can't stand to see their glory eclipsed. Someone better tell Mr. De Mille that they are ready for their close up.

[kirotahoe]

it's been bothering me that nbc and especially msnbc are fixated on becoming to dems what fox has become to repubs. it really is impossible to get news much less unbiased journalism on either station. maybe i'll give cnn more of a chance if they would muzzle wolf blitzer.

doesn't really matter though - i think they may be owned by the same person. i mean, if rupert can own fox and the wall street journal, why can't he own nbc, cbs, and everything else in the world!

[patrice37]

I've got a problem! I'm a smart woman, and while it's no secret that I got my job because my husband was the company's C.E.O., I have worked my tail off and met expectations. Now that I'm trying to advance, a new colleague --- let's call him O. --- is suddenly promoting himself for the job that's opening up. He's younger than I am, and is constantly mouthing big-view stuff, and he's got himself a little fan club in the office. I'm thinking of getting my husband, who's now retired, to spread some dirt about O. That should show just how independent and deserving I am. Oh, and I just found my voice. It came from listening to all of you.

[chilifan]

Thanks for being bold enough to post what has seemed obvious to me for a long time. I cannot stand Andrea Mitchell. She may once have been a real reporter, but that was long ago.

Whether you love the Clintons or hate them, they have to play the game in order to win, and this is a crucial time for a Democratic win. What Hillary would actually do if she became president is unknown to anyone. It's all guesswork, and even she can't be positive how she will react in certain situations. But consider this: who else has a stronger motive to destroy the republican party? Who else has been through and passed the toughest possible tests, in public no less, than this woman? Who has been more scrutinized? She has proven one thing to me which is an important one: she is a wonderful mother who raised an amazing daughter. This is a game she has no choice but to play. I want republicans gone for good, and if "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", she would be by far the best person to take them on and beat them. She is not Bill. Who of all the candidates on either side has been more tried and tested than HIllary Clinton? I don't have to like her, since this is not a personality contest, but I damned sure respect her. And I have to admit, she has got the guts it will take to be president after Bush, and much as I may prefer others in some ways, she may just be what we need.

[Mollye]

I've just become a fan of Kathleen Reardon. Huffingtonpost needs more articles like this one.

[Jazz42]

Ms Reardon.
I saw the news report you are referring to. I did not see what you said you saw. I think Anrdea Mitchell is pro Hillary Clinton. This is how misinformation gets out, people come on here and post things that are not accurate. (ALA CLINTONS)

[altohone]

Just because Mitchell got into the fray, it doesn't mean Bill can lie all he wants without repercussions. Ignoring the concept of fact-checking to defend your candidate is pure bias.

These posts that paint the Clintons as victims are really too much.

[InofTouch]

Wasn't long time ago that Hillary was the favourte darling of the media...I think Hillary enjoy were she at. We all know she the favourte but no one going to say that out loud

[newfapalooza]

Just because the republicans resort to underhanded smear tactics doesn't mean that the Clintons need to go there too. In my mind the only difference between them & Bush is the fact that they are actually competent which is a plus but they are just as morally bankrupt. Do you honestly believe that the man who said "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sex with that woman" is not dissembling now?

I agree that who ever is the nominee needs to stand up to these types of tactics but that doesn't mean we have to wallow around in the cesspool with Karl Rove.

Also for the record, I was a Hillary supporter until the Clintons started their Machavellian tactics. I am voting for Obama and while I do find positives about him, it is as much of a repudiation of the Clintons and their style of governance as anything else.

[dr4Will]

thank you for the first honest blog on the Clintons--most of the bloggers on the Huff post only favor ,in a strong biased way ,Obama and his actions--truth will always win out,contrary to the fanatic Obama follows beliefs--

[brueso]

There isn't a history of other candidate's spouses tearing apart the opposition candidate. The usual spouse is out there supporting their spouse and talking up their high points. It (should be) beneath the dignity of the office of the President for the President to be out and about frothing at the mouth like a junkyard dog.

The reason Kennedy et al spoke to Bill about this is the negativity he's interjected into the race endangers the support of voters in the general election who might just decide to sit on their hands in November. The Democrats not only want to take the White House- they'd ideally like Majorities in both houses of Congress.

[Dap]

Dear Dr. Reardon,

While you make some astute points. From my personal POV, this is turning into a game of brinkmanship... not statesmanship, big difference, and it's like playing with fire while sitting in a tinder-box, one wrong move and it all goes up in flames.

Just my two cents, but don't say there was no warning. Agape.

[lizardbox]

I honestly tried really hard to see things the way you do but found it difficult to do so. It's not as simple a matter as to say that Obama's wife gets to sacrifice, and so does Bill. It is the comments and issues that lack substance that bother me. President Clinton is a smart person. Senator Hillary is a very smart person as well. They know why Obama cast his "present" votes. They know the reasoning behind his quote about Bush' conduct of the war in 2004. They know his record on abortion in Illinois. The common understanding here though is that it is easier to throw it out there and let the voters figure it out. But, in the age of 10 second news flashes and Hilton/Spears dominated media, what sticks is the accusation and not the explanation of or the defense against said accusation.

This whole thing is part of a strategy that has succeeded and will continue. And Obama cannot win. He fights back and he's no longer the candidate of change. He refuses to respond to the accusations and he is conceived to be weak or guilty as charged.

Whatever Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are presenting as real contrasts are mere low-blows that betray the trust of the electorate. Not sure anyone can win against that.

[Ermasdaughter]

Honestly, why are you so making this case? This would never have been an issue if Bill Clinton had spoken the truth. Instead he's been an agent for misinformation and rhetoric.

I don't this would have ever come up if Bill hadn't been out there spreading lies....

Let's face is: The Clintons are a shameless bunch willing to do and say ANYTHING to keep their dynasty going.

There's no way in the world Hillary can unite this nation. I don't care how much experience she has or how "ready on day one" she'll be she can't and won't unite us.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Hillary cried and Bill came to her rescue. Lying is not beneath them if it gets them what they want. The real question to ask is, "Is that what we want?" Regardless of how you answer that, it is not OK for the ex-President to tell outrageous lies as he has been doing and turn into a full blown megalomaniac right in front of our eyes.