Why Hillary Clinton Still Matters

In the remaining Democratic presidential primaries, voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless the residents of states like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania still have to decide between the two of them who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.

I have had the good fortune to observe Hillary Clinton's career while living in New York. Up-close, she is an unusually tough, savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining Federal assistance for Ground Zero workers exposed to toxic air. As importantly, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of the FDR-JFK wing of the Democratic Party. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on the Hill.

Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to preemptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. She has said on many occasions she would have voted differently had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job. Today she vows to end the war and is currently trying to prevent the establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq by requiring prior Congressional approval for any such outposts.

Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the first Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Senator Clinton advocated a $70 billion emergency spending and a back-up of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America - namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, the unemployed who require extended jobless benefits and funding for alternative energy and environmental programs. Her opponent, Senator Obama belatedly came out with his own plan a few days ago which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Senator Clinton's proposal.

On a more specific level, Senator Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the sub-prime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry. Senator Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. This is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.

In many ways, Senator Clinton is to the left of Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, Senator Obama's plan is more restrictive and would leave 15 million people uncovered. Lastly, Hillary Clinton is a fighter for change. Senator Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a motivational speaker. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the Fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be swiftboated into oblivion.

Comments

[Afrogirl]

Great article. Thanks. All one really has to do to know how to vote is talk to the constituencies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the areas they represent. Obama's folks can't think of anything he has done for them and barely know him. Clinton's constituency knows and loves her and whether they agree with what she's done or not they can quote you chapter and verse on how hard she has worked for New York.

Obama's "conciliatory" takes on a different meaning when you look at the role he didn't play when at Harvard Law School. The student body - black and white - in an uproar over the school's lack of African American students and lack of an African American tenured professor or even one on a tenured track. He stood on the side lines and at the end was the compromise candidate for the law review - the favorite of professors who could hold up a "good" Black person as opposed to those other kind demonstrating and trying to bring about change.

Obama also lied to Black Civil Rights workers in their faces at the anniversary of the March on Selma. I can't get past that one. To get in a pulpit with the people who sweat blood to bring about change and lie to them claiming you owed your birth via your parents being able to marry because of what the people in the congregation did at Selma and he was able to be born, when he was actually two or three years old at the time and knew he was lying. That was amazing. He did apologize for that lie, but only after he was called on his lying. The press gives him a free pass for all of this, but those unethical situations are growing and the question is being asked why the press is so quiet in the face of such flagrancy and such a totally unethical campaign.

[sharon40]

Obama against McCain? Obama loses. All of those "Reagen Democrats" will become McCain Democrats. The older, working class people will not vote for Obama, and they vote. Check out Reagens victories and McCain will follow suit. Not to mention that the Republican machine will easily wipe Obama out. They are just waiting with baited breath. And those states that Obama recently "won". None of those will go Democratic so they have no meaning. Watch and learn.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

"Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to preemptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. She has said on many occasions she would have voted differently had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job."

No sale, Jay. Remember the Levin Amendment? That's EXACTLY what it was about. Did you bother to read Hillary's explanation of why she COULDN'T vote for it (even though she praised it, at the time)? That explanation is either the worst bald-faced lie, or an admission of terminal incompetence.

You know, Jay, some time from now, maybe two or three years, you'll re-read these columns you wrote in hyperbolic support of Hillary, and - if you have any conscience left at all - you'll hide under your bed in shame for a year.

[Timma]

Pro-Clinton people fail to recognize the importance of Barack Obama's poll numbers. It's been decades since any politician running for president's been able to ring up the kinds of numbers Obama's getting - drawing from a broad spectrum across the board. This indisputable fact makes Obama the best choice. Policy wonks want to make mountains out of minor differences. The clear difference is that Obama understands something very deep and critical about America of which Clinton is clueless. Clueless because she's cut from the same cloth as Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc.

[JayeSutter]

Rove, Bush, Cheney? Those assholes have pursued the Clintons since 1992. I can't believe Obama supporters have just awakened and discovered that politics is hard and life is unfair and that there are people who have actually done things in their political careers instead of talking about the future.

There is Hillary who has brought us to this moment. By working hard, all of her life, and Obama hasn't done anything in two years. Why with all of his talk a person would think he would have set Washington a blaze. But he hasn't done anything and he won't because he doesn't have any experience.

Hillary has what it takes. Twice elected in her own right to the Senate. Passed legislation and became a master at the rules of the game.

Why hasn't Obama done anything? He has had two years to lead the way. The president doesn't lead Congress. Congress leads this nation. He hasn't been able to change the world from the Senate?

Hillary changes the whole game by walking in the room as a force of nature, someone who is smart, capable, able and changing how things get done.

With a Republican Congress who is going to hate Obama, he will being done before he begins. How is he going to get Cheney's, Rove's and Bush's children to follow him? Not.

[Afrogirl]

Obama's numbers come from a whole lot of people afraid of a female for president. Many Blacks are voting for him under extreme pressure. I haven't seen this much pressure applied in the African American community in many a year. Oprah comes out in what I consider a highly unethical support of Obama. when you have her kind of power in a democratic society you may use it to get people to read books, or to do other good things, but to use it to influence the political process is way over the top. Measure Obama's actions and campaigning and the people around him on an ethical scale and you will be amazed and not positively influenced. The quiet about his relationship with Louis Farrakhan and what role he will play in an Obama presidency is deafening. I read one reporter saying in spite of the fact that Obama didn't object when his Church named Farrakhan man of the year he used his candidacy to respond by making his campaign all inclusive. what kind of crap is that.

He and his campaign accused Hillary of racism when she mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. in terms of a great civil rights leader, but such a person always does better with the support of a strong president and he had the support of Lyndon Johnson. Folks went up in smoke because Hillary made a statement of fact. The Civil Rights Act, while the influence and pressure came from King's movement, wouldn't have been nearly as easy to pass as it was with Johnson pushing for it. So wasn't Hillary correct in her statement? It wasn't racist, it was factual.

Open your eyes folks. The press is being very quiet about all of this plus a whole lot more - WHY? They are being paid - or they have been intimidated and don't want to be called racist?

[antirepublocrat]

Hillary's reference to MLK and LBJ was a calculated, coded reminder to whites that Obama is black, and that as such he is qualified only as a vocal advocate for change, not to take the reins of power himself.

There was absolutely no other reason to bring up the subject of MLK. Barack Obama is not Martin Luther King, and Hillary Clinton is certainly no Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ had been Senate Majority Leader and had far more legislative seniority, experience and political capital than Hillary Clinton will ever have.

The playing of the race card was further confirmed by the whisper campaign about cocaine, remarks about Obama's "work in the neighborhood", Bill's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson, and Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" remark. The American people are rightly offended by these tactics and are making it clear in their rejection of the Clinton candidacy.

[marcialosangeles]

Hillary Clinton does indeed still matter.
To me, a woman activist who has been waiting for a candidate of Hillary's caliber for 30 years, her election will be transformative.
Thank you for your up close and personal views. I am equally impressed that Arianna published your views on the Huffington Post!!
There IS hope.

[mamamay]

Do you know why Hil does not want you to know her real record.Obama has worked on 1000's to her 20. Yes, She doesn't have Experience to qualify for Pres. Go to the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov She's only worked on about 20 pcs of legislation. Now compare her record to Obama's (same website). He has worked on 1000's. 233 Health Reform Care, 15 Gun control, 6 Veteran Affairs 125 poverty and public assistance, passed Lugar Obama Nuclear proliferation and conventional weapons Threat Reduction Act.Passed Coburn Obama Govt.Transparency Act 06 She has to fight, Bill has to poke folks in the face, Chelsea prefers to hula instead of talking to Reporters. Why? They are desperate to go to the WH, and not many feel that they deserve it. Vote Obama in 08

[BardEric]

She's only worked on 20 pieces of legislation?!? You're having a Kool-aid related delusion!!! Check your facts before you start sprewing B.S.! Are you talking about PASSED legislation? Bills she co-sponsored, endorses, or has (as you so generally put it)just "woked on"?.You are giving Obama gredit for every peice of legislation to ever land on his desk; and not for his opponent.Very telling...

[Nooneyouknow]

Like Margaret Thatcher's reign was transformative to the U.K.?

[CitizenJeanne]

Thank you for the sane and sober assessment of Hillary Clinton. She has done a remarkable job all her life, and especially as Senator of New York, my home state. And, there is no doubt in my mind that she is the best qualified to lead the nation. And, yes, I agree that Senator Obama reminds me of a motivational speaker. I have yet to hear him say anything that makes him sounds knowledgeable or make a reasonable proposal regarding any of the problems we face, including Iraq and healthcare. On the other hand, Senator Clinton's proposals sound not only reasonable, but also exciting. She is the true candidate of change, and reason.

[Nooneyouknow]

Uh, speaking as a New Yorker, what has she accomplished for the state? New York has always been Hillary's stepladder to the presidency. Maybe there's some things I've missed, but I think Al D'Amato did more for the state, little weasel that he is.

[jefegeoffe]

>>"she would have voted differently had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job": Wow! Given a blank check, did she think she then had any say on how he spent it? The drumbeat to war was loud and clear across the country, but she couldn't hear it? Sorry, this vote just won't wash out. An apology, even early on, still wouldn't excuse her incredible lack of judgment and moral courage.
>>"She was among the first"... "Over a month ago"... "a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America - namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages": A whole MONTH ago, she was right on top of the mortgage crisis...well, where was she when the banks were deregulated, and Wall Street was invited to the party? Again, "right on top of it"! Or rather, right in the thick of it! The amounts donated to ALL the campaigns, Rep or Dem, show how grateful Sachs, Lehman, Citigroup, et al. are for the chance to plunder yet another market. Her record is TAINTED, brother, and her apologists are wrong to make excuses for her.

[JayeSutter]

Had Chicago been bombed and Obama in the Senate, he would have voted to go to war and make someone pay for the suffering of the people of Illinois.

Why didn't Obama just introduce legislation--because that is what it is going to take, not action by the president--to fix this problem. He is in the Senate now. Where is all of his legislation to fix all these problems he knows how to fix.

Indeed.

[wu]

.

I was following your article on Hillary just fine until you referred to Obama as a motivational speaker. This just shows that you are not so smart as you seemed to be in the first few paragraphs...to bad... you spoil your original arguments when you resort to this type of bs.

.

[FOXYLADY]

WU......AAAMEN, AAAMEN, AAMMEEENNN, AAAMEN

[GuiltyUndertaker]

"In many ways Senator Clinton is to the left of Senator Obama."

Yeah, and Rep. Kucinich was to the left of both of them in EVERY WAY. Why didn't you Democrats support him when you had the chance? This is why I will likely sit out this election or search for a party that wants the kind of America I desire.

[BardEric]

I think the media bears a bit of the blame for Mr Kucinich not being able to get his message heard. We cant exactly say he was given equal time with JRC, BHO, Or John Edwards. The media went even so far as to stop inviting candidates to their debates..I wish Mr Kucinich had remained in the fight a bit longer; his ability to cut thru all the BS in the campaign was very refreshing, and sorely missed.

[BardEric]

OOPPS-typo alert! HRC not JRC. Sorry.

[Nooneyouknow]

Amen. Hillary and Obama are as far to the left as their corporate sponsors and gatekeepers will let them go, not that they don't cooperate. I'm excited about neither, but Obama seems to have a moral compass that he actually uses.

[riverhouse]

Hillary is so old news. The Clintons are no longer pertinent. Bill is sloppy and argumentative. He looks like one of those Southern mayors back in the '60s when they were wagging their fingers at blacks for wanting to go where they weren't wanted. Maybe later was their expression then, just as it's Hillary's supporters who are telling OBama to wait his turn. Well, that's not for the Clintons to decide. Hillary is an old school partisan pol, bought by large corproate interests and special interests. She's not electable. More than half of the voting population have said they would not vote for her.

[AvasTiaJeanne]

Unfortunately, for all of her great accomplishments, I don't feel that Hillary is electable; furthermore, if she were to win, it would be by such a narrow margin, that she would be unable to govern effectively.
Too many people dislike her and her husband,remember the scandals and accusations of the 90's, and are uncomfortable with the though of "Bill Clinton in the WH with nothing to do."
Although that is unfortunate,it is reality.
Secondly, I think that what we need in this country is new blood at the helm; someone who makes people feel interested in the process, and that doesn't simply tick off a laundry list of things to do, but makes it clear that the country will need to be united in order to reach solutions to our problems. Hillary doesn't have the ability to do this; Obama does, and he has the policies and strategies to get things done.

[banats]

Polls change. Three months ago, Hillary was way ahead of the pack. Whose to say that she can't win against McCain? The polls? America usually votes for the new face with little Washington experience. That's why we elected Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush jr. Maybe we need someone tough who knows the ins and outs of Washington in the world we live in today. BTW, John McCain had his flings before he and his first wife divorced. I learned of this from the MSNBC Heroes & Legends documentry. McCain apologizes for his behaviour.

[mjc]

The election of 1960 couldn't have been closer, and some thought was manipulated in Chicago, yet Kennedy had no trouble governing. That is just a myth. Sharon40 has it correctly. If Obama does win the nomination, McCain and the rest of the Rovers will make mincemeat of his non-record, his inexperience, and his appeal to non-whites. That's just a fact, unfortunately, not a point of view.

[NubianFirethorn]

We have already had a president that voters would most like to have a beer with. Seven long, miserable years with this president who won two elections because voters opted for personality instead of character and policy. Now, we have Barack Obama as a presidential candidate, and voters are again (Democrats this time) turning into a gaggle of screaming, crying, sappy, teenie-boppers. Obama and Clinton are like two potential employees interviewing for the same job. Obama, young, attractive, and charismatic, who can give a great speech, but can show only minimal qualifications for the job, and Clinton, predictable and practical, but who has a resume that is perfect for the job. So who gets the job? The hardworking, middle-aged, overweight, dull female who bores the interviewer? Or, the dumb, young, cute, flirty blond, who comes to the interview wearing a short skirt? (Hint - How many dumb blonds work in your office?) Our country is never going to get out of the mess we are in if we allow the same people that vote for American Idol to determine who is going to be our Democratic candidate.

[ndnndpendent]

You said very effectively about Bill's finger wagging what so many people felt inside. It was embarrassing.

[Silknspark]

It would be greatly appreciated that whomever amongst us that is trying to change our Republic into a socialistic state, would please move to those countries that already have such in place.
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are far to interested in having people with "get up and go," support people with "sit down and whine."
My support will go to any candidate, regardless their party, ethnicity, gender, religion, who will absolutely shun such income redistribution, and honor our Constitution, private property and states rights.
Thank you.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

That was absolutely childish.

[TribunusPlebis]

Stephen Schlesinger's earnest, textbook-like admiration of Hillary Clinton has been notable for its dogged persistence. But it's all for naught -- because the New York Senator is simply unelectable. And for evidence, we need look no further than the freshest polls of the last two days. Today, SurveyUSA reports that McCain is beating Clinton in a general-election match-up in Wisconsin by 7 points, but that Obama is beating McCain by 10 points -- a 17-point electabillity advantage for Obama in a classic swing state. Yesterday, Rasmussen reported that McCain is ahead of Clinton by 2 points in Pennsylvania (a must-win for Democrats) and by 3 points in Oregon; in contrast, Obama is ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania by 10 points (a 13-point electability advantage for Obama) and he's ahead of McCain by 9 points in Oregon (a 12-point electability advantage over Clinton). These are staggering differences in the relative appeal of Obama and Clinton to the general electorate, which no Democrats voting in upcoming primaries can afford to ignore. Yet the most impressive lesson of these numbers is the enormous potential of Obama to win the general election in a landslide -- something that no serious observer believes Hillary Clinton could ever achieve.

[gingrmac]

Wow, 2 points, 7 points -- scary to be within the margin of error. These polls are NO PREDICTOR of November. Obama is falling in the polls in WISDCONSIN today -- concentrate on that one first. You Obamaites really need to stop counting your chickens before their hatched-- it's bad luck :)

[tgd10]

Surely, you do not believe that these poll numbers from February 2008 are immutable, do you? C'mon now, let's be real -- the election is almost 9 months away. If we start selecting candidates based on these early poll numbers, we play a fool's game. Moreover, I remeber that it was said that Hillary couldn't win over New York in her bid to become NY's junior senator, ... but lo and behold, she did just that, and even won over the conservative heartland in western, upstate New York. Would she be a stronger presidential candidate in November 2008 than Barack? I don't know. But I do know that there are WAY too many variables at this point to try to make ANY determination on THAT basis this far in advance.

[mabelle55]

Whew, I don't know where you got these figures, but Quinnipiac, ARG, Rasmussen polls that I viewed over the weekend each showed John McCain beating BOTH Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the "battleground" states, though by only 2-4 points. And in 'these' polls, Independents don't make a whit of difference for either of them. In fact, both of them get about the same Independent support: 36-38 percent. Men -- the same thing.

Obama's supporters have your heads in the clouds if you think he's going to cakewalk into the White House. I frankly don't think he has a prayer; whereas I think Hillary Clinton has a far better chance of beating John McCain because she has a command of the issues and knows the workings of the system to get things done.

[TribunusPlebis]

To all those who are kidding themselves if they actually believe that Hillary is not significantly behind Obama in competitiveness with McCain: You're not focusing on the key statistic in these polls (which come from highly respected national polling organizations): the electability advantage, meaning the percentage points that separate Obama and Clinton in relation to McCain. It's way over 10 percent in one of the most regularly competitive states between Republicans and Democrats (Wisconsin), and more than 10 percent in another state usually won by Democrats (Oregon). People ignored the same kind of electability advantage that Gary Hart possessed over Walter Mondale in '84, voted for Mondale anyway, and he lost 49 states. Drive over a cliff with Hillary if you wish, but don't refuse to look at poll evidence because it's mutable. And by the way, on that point: Of course polls change, but one thing that hasn't changed in years is Hillary's highest-ever disapproval ratings for a possible presidential nominee. There are reasons she acquired that, and they are not ignorable.

[ndnndpendent]

....and after all mabelle55, it takes a white woman to have the intellectual ability to take on the washington establishment and bring change and get things done....please, we can read between the lines of what youre saying. That is what youre saying isnt it?

[denicast]

Never said it was going to be a cakewalk. Whoever can get the most turnout and most independents and cross-overs will win the election. It has been the case forever, unless you have a spoiler candidate like Ross Perot. I am figuring that Hillary can only get out her base and people like myself who always vote democratic in these situations. Obama will bring in new voters, independents, moderate republicans, and a huge bulk of the democratic voters if not all (except those who just don't want to vote for a black man).

[rbruce]

You make a great argument why Clinton is a top-notch senator, one who will only grow in stature and expertise in the future.

Policy wonks such as Hillary do not belong in the White House. That calls for an inspirational leader.

Cheers.

[gingrmac]

rbruce--I think you have been brainwashed and hypnotized by the dufus W these past, long 7 years. That is precisely what they said about W, now it's so funny to hear the EXACT, SAME, WORDS being rationalized and pontificated by the Obamaites. HILARIOUS. There are people in the world, especially experienced adults who would prefer to go the brainiac. B.S.ers are a dime a dozen. Actions count, save your words for the Republicans, they like that emotional craziness. But, then again, Obama does attract plenty of Republicans, this blog is filled with them. Hmmmm.

[denicast]

So you think Obama is not smart?

[vanessar]

Like 'vsign' I actually started out liking Obama and thinking that he had a chance to make a difference. After listening to him and reading about what he proposes to do as president, I no longer trust him. It's a pity that so many people seem to be in a trance and believe that he is some kind of a god. I hope that they will come to their senses before it's too late.

[BardEric]

I hope so too. "Keep the Change"!- Hillary '08!

[roncraw]

Obama received over 80% of the black vote in almost every state.if Hillary received 80% of white votes in every state they would call it racism.The youth vote will be a fleeting as their continuing change of worshiping a different rock star every year.

[BardEric]

If we really want racism in politics to go away, we have to stop allowing the use of race in demographics. That is the only way to give everyone exactly the same voice in the process. The demographic groups that the political scientists have assigned us according to our differencees, are too readily used to divide us. It needs to be about popular vote peroid; not this ethnic groups or the other's endorsements.

[Loeb]

To Steve Schlesinger: An excellent piece on
Hillary. Both Hillary and Obama are evidently
committed to the "special relationship" with
Israel, refusal to work with Iran, refusal to recognize the Democratically-elected resistance
movement in Gaza, commitment to continued torture, massacres, harrassment byy Israel and continued
US funding of "settlements" of the Israelis (see Noam Chomsky:"The FatefulTriangle") Hillary is particularly hawkish as regards foreign policy, unwilling to work with IAEA, unwilling to work with the World Court,unwilling to oppose the so-called "free"-trade agreements which have caused so much havoc in foreign lands and in this one
and which are product of the W. Clinton admin.

I agree that both Hillary and Obama are smart.
I also agree with the commenter that the young
will whither at the policy battle-fronts.

I agree with John Edwards that we should work to
expand the majoprity of Democrats (of many
kinds) in the House of Representatives.
The Speaker is female. I often disagree with
Speaker Pelosi but as a loyal Democrat am
ready for battle. Speaker Pelosi is a consumate
politician's politician with skills we need in
our Democratic Party.

(I remember meeting you at your Dad's house
when I went for my interview at Harvard...c.59)

I disagree with "mandating" the payment of
exhorbitant profits to commercial, private
entities in the medical-industrial complex.
That is not "universal coverage". I favor MEDICARE FOR ALL (See Kennedy, S.2121,109th
Congress.)

[generationyes]

So, a black vote for a black candidate is always because of race, but white votes for white candidates is always rational?

[JohnCP]

Slow down man, no one is saying that. But when a candidate gets 90% of the Black vote based on virtually nothing but "race," doesn't that tell you soemthing? Will you go around trying to prove that Obama has managed to get 90% of Blacks to vote for him, when practically none of them have had a chance to find out anything about him. It's interesting that Bill Clinton had a fantastic reputation with Blacks, until this election, when things happened between Obama and Bill, that suddenly put the Clinton's in a bad light vis a vis, Blacks. Why Bill Clinton would allow such a thing to happen is impossible for me to understand. Media say Clinton was responsible for the rift, Charlie Rangel thinks Obama was responsible for creating it.