Bill Clinton and the spotlight simply go together

We think we've seen this dynamic before -- and likely will again.

As a prelude to the debate among the Democratic presidential candidates in South Carolina tonight (on CNN, starting at 5 p.m. PST), the center of attention within the party is the fellow who's already served two terms in the White House (and hopes to return as First Laddy) -- Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama put the ex-president squarely in his sights in an interview that aired today on ABC's "Good Morning America." Obama didn't mince words, charging that Clinton has been making "false statements" about him and vowing to confront him more directly about that.

Meanwhile, the story generating the most attention in political circles is a Newsweek piece reporting that no less of a party icon than Ted Kennedy -- as well as others -- have privately suggested to Clinton that he be a bit more diplomatic in pushing his wife's cause over Obama's in the Democratic race. (The story's headline: "Leading Democrats to Bill Clinton: Pipe down.")

Clinton also was the target of a public barb today.

At the annual ceremony in Atlanta ...

honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the church he preached at, Shirley Franklin -- the city's mayor and an Obama backer -- was undeterred by the ex-president's presence just a few feet from her as she spoke at the event. Referring to Obama's candidacy, she said the U.S. was on the "cusp of turning the impossible into reality. Yes, this is reality, not fantasy or fairy tales."

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted, her comment was a none-too-subtle jab at Clinton's controversial contention, as the hotly contested New Hampshire primary drew to a close two weeks ago, that coverage of Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war has been a "fairy tale."

We doubt that Clinton -- when he sees an opening -- will refrain from jabbing back at Obama; playing political hardball is in his blood. And we doubt that as long as his wife remains on the inside track to the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton's campaign will make much of an effort to rein him in.

It will be interesting to see, however, if Obama's campaign makes a concerted effort to press the argument made by one of his top advisors in the Newsweek article. Gene Craig, a lawyer who was one of the ex-president's key defenders during the impeachment saga, contended that "recent events raise the question: If Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Two Terms Per Family]

My big problem with this (and I'd like to say ahead of time I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton), is that he seems to be thinking that *he* is the candidate. I see him up there at speeches, and I'm having a hard time figuring out who running - he keeps bringing up that stupid Lewinsky scandal which should just be left buried.

*knock knock, it's 2008*

To me, having Bill Clinton in the White House again, while not a true third term, would be de facto third term because of his influence. That gives me the Constitutional Heebie Geebies.

[not for Hillary]

A pledge not to vote for Hillary Clinton for President is gaining numbers.

You can view the pledge here: http://notforhillary.blogspot.com/

The stated goal of the pledge: to send a message to the DNC and the press in advance of Super Tuesday primary voting that the Democratic Party will lose votes by nominating Senator Hillary Clinton.

[elizabeth bauersox]

Obama *always* minces words. He tends to speak in broad generalities, seldom in particulars. Instead of saying that Clinton is mischaracterizing his record and misquoting him -- he needs to be specific if he wants to convince anybody but the most air-headed voters. Exactly which statements of Clinton's are false, and what is the correct information? Yelling "liar! liar!" without further documenting his assertions makes Obama look like a sore loser.

[miriam biteng]

There is no point to debate on this issue. Remember all have the chance to prove themselves, and let the people to decide on it. We are all a part of a huge garden like flowers of different beautiful colors, shapes, and tendencies. we are uniquely all beautiful. Just go on prove your worth in the arena, and when the mud on the water subsides, we shall see the truth and who is worth leading us .

[Diogo]

It's troubling to see so many voters (as past events and current comments on the web) confess to not care about Bill Clinton's constant lies.

It's also troubling that the same people who loudly denounce George Bush would support Bill Clinton. People conviniently forget that Clinton was the first to cowardly attack innocent people with the excuse of fighting al Qaeda.

Remember 1998, when Clinton bombed a drug factory in Sudan, destroying the entire medicine supply of that country for many years, causing the death of 100.000 innocent people??? And he did that only to divert attention from the Monica Lewinski case. I think that such attack was a blatant terrorist attack. It was much more irresponsible than the wars waged by Bush - at least Bush took responsibility to keep the troops and be involved in the mess to the end. Clinton is a war criminal who attacked civilian targets and ran away from the consequences.

Bill Clinton is a shamelles liar, a terrorist and a neoliberal of the worst kind. Neo-liberal policies, by the way, that are the cause to the current recession (jsut like they caused financial crisis in Argentina, Mexico and elsewhere). Bill Clinton strongly promoted neo-liberalism and Alan Greespan actions (the conservatives' darling) - and now they want to blame others for the recession they also caused.

But I've been aware of Bill Clinton unworthyness for a while. What trully troubles me is the hipocrisy manifested by so many so-called liberals that repeatedly say that his lies don't matter. These hipocrites are no better than the worst neo-cons or fundamentalist christian behind Bush's crimes.

[Ed]

Factcheck: President Clinton on Sen. Obama's record

1/20/2008 7:06:09 PM

During today’s taping of Good Morning America, Sen. Obama accused President Clinton of making factually inaccurate statements.

‘[The Former President] has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.' [Good Morning America, taped 1/20/08]

Actually, President Clinton’s statements about Sen. Obama are true. Yesterday, President Clinton said he observed voter suppression in Nevada:

There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.'

The Las Vegas Sun confirmed the tactics that President Clinton was discussing:

Take, for instance, the case of Ruben Beltran, a Culinary member and Clinton volunteer who helps set up conventions at Mandalay Bay. Union representatives, he said, are telling employees they must caucus for Obama on Saturday, making it sound more like a demand than a suggestion. Beltran said workers feel intimidated because the union holds sway over their jobs.

Yesterday, President Clinton said Sen. Obama’s radio ad instructed Republicans and Independents to register as Democrats:

There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.

President Clinton is correct. Sen. Obama was running radio ads asking Republicans and Independents to switch their registration:

Caucus for Barack Obama Saturday the 19th 11am. You can register right at the caucus. Independents and Republicans who want real change can attend and switch registration. Call 888-622-6268 to learn more.

In fact, Sen. Obama’s Nevada precinct captain made a flyer urging Republicans to caucus for Sen. Obama "if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary."

Earlier this week, President Clinton highlighted Sen. Obama’s comments on how Republicans had all the ideas for the past 15 years:

Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good idea…So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas.

Don’t take President Clinton's word on it, here is Sen. Obama praising the Republican Party for being the party of ideas that challenged ‘conventional wisdom’:

"I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Earlier this month, President Clinton questioned Sen. Obama’s Iraq War Record:

It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.

President Clinton’s statements are confirmed by the facts. In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.

‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated":

Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

Finally, Sen. Obama and Hillary do have almost identical voting records on Iraq:

In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]

[ACTORartistPOET]

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again: "I ... did not tell lies ... about that man ... Mr. Obama." I never told anybody to lie--not a single time--never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for Hillary's campaign.

[Teddi Curtis]

I plan to vote for Clinton. I admire Obama for the progress he has offered our country in being a VERY electable black candidate.
I am, however, very disturbed by the media making the Democratic Primary election a "two-horse race."
John Edwards would be an excellent leader for the nation. He would be an excellent representative of us around the world. His record of fighting for the regular folks for all of his adult life compares positively with the adult records of both Clinton and Obama. And, lastly, he is attractive, just as the other two are.
Why is he excluded from press coverage, or added to the coverage more as a footnote than as a viable candidate?

[Ronald Loui]

Ed's post is a pretty good one -- possibly the best case the Clinton's can make in defense of Bill's outlandish behavior. But this is just funny, trying to defend Bill Clinton as a truth teller.

The whole game that Bill Clinton plays is to take something factual and make it appear differently from what it is. This is the whole "bad politics" style that permits "sound bites" to trump analysis. It is why, when you watch PBS news, they play a longer piece of a person's words so you can examine the context. Look, for example, at the qualifier, "... in the sense of challenging conventional wisdom." And then Clinton's version "So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or [sic] better or the Republicans had all the good ideas." This is just what politicians do.

Here are two different senses of "better". In Obama's use, it means they are "newer, more creative, more inspired, more coherent," although not necessarily more progressive, better for the people or for the country. He is expressing an abstract concept, not a value judgement. I'll also admit that in the context of his Reagan reference, he probably should have said "over the past thirty years" in order to include the Reagan years. I too have some admiration for the energy of the Republican "ideation" over this time, though I am and was certainly opposed to their policies and ideologies, and even despised much of their legislation. Having ideas can be a value-neutral quality, and it can be possessed in better or lesser amounts. Clinton's opportunistic restatement, very much like "I did not have sex" or "It depends on what 'is' is", is to use the word "better" as if it were "better legislation, better policy, bettering our world if enacted."

What Obama is obviously saying is that the Democrats need to produce new progressive ideas that are as coherent and inspiring as what Reagan did for the Republicans. Otherwise, to attack and twist his meaning, you have to attack his loyalty to the Democratic party, which is really pretty far-fetched. He might not be a loyal Clintonian, but as his fellow Dem endorsements show (e.g., John Kerry, Bill Bradley), there are many loyal members of the Democratic party who put party and national loyalty above loyalty to Bill Clinton.

Look, I can admire a chess opponent who plays BETTER than I do, without thinking that my loss is a better thing for my personal predicament, or for that matter, for my fellow citizens, or the human condition. (And if I keep losing to such an opponent, I might indeed want to study how he keeps BETTERing me.) Cleverness is just that, and there are evil geniuses out there who can be praised in the abstract. Bill Clinton, for example, deserves praise for his ability to parse words -- he's BETTER at it than most -- but this ability has often not served to produce BETTERMENT for the United States of America.

[Tangerine]

I support Hillary, but I will gladly vote for Obama should he get the nomination.
But if he keeps dissing the Clintons, I may have to reconsider that .

He may get somewhere with the independents and republicans with his attacks on the Clintons, but he will lose many more democrats.

[Tony Iovino]

If he is going to confront Bill (the disbarred lawyer) Clinton every time Bill lies, Obama will be the busiest person in America.

In my lifetime I've had the privilege of watching Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and Michael Jordan play basketball, Wayne Gretzky play hockey, Muhammed Ali box, Tom Seaver pitch, Tiger Woods golf.

And I've heard the Clintons lie.

Greatness comes in many forms .

[Dick Price]

My choice: an Obama-Edwards ticket, with Clinton as Senator Majority Leader and her husband on a book-signing tour where his lack of self-control could once again be amusing.

[Rocco]

CLINTON/OBAMA 2008!

[Retired FDNY]

As a New Yorker, I am still in disbelief that this woman was elected a US Senator from our state. It makes me sick ! Now it's Slick Willy's turn to step on the gas pedal and attemp to roll over Obama with his lies. I would never believe a word out of his mouth then, and now.....Both of the Clinton's are full horse---- ! God help us if these two advocates of murderers ( Black panther movement) make it back into the White House !

[berkeley]

I'm not an overly enthusiastic Senator Clinton [or ex-President Clinton] supporter but watching Senator Obama I consistently get the vibe he feels as if the presidency is his by charm and fuzzy vision right alone. Only thing is, I don't see the charm when he's not getting what he wants [note his graceless Nevada loss/win] and I don't see much of a vision either. Just alot of kumbaya talk rooted neither in reality nor experience.

Ex-president Clinton is defending his wife here. If he get's a little heated, well I don't blame him. He think's his wife is being dirty tricked by the Obama campaign while at they same time they, hypocrically, claim to be about a new bloodless politics. At least his response of anger to what I also see as a petulant competative brooding from the Obama campaign his honest.

Regardless of how positively Senator Obama or his supporters may feel about themselves, the presidency is earned not just granted to the latest fresh face.

Fight and win or lose like a man Barack. Hillary certainly seems to be.