License to Fib

This is pretty neat. According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a "right-wing talking point" and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib. So when Clinton said he opposed the Iraq War, that must have been true, because I'm a liberal. And when Clinton said Barack Obama didn't oppose the Iraq War, that must have been true too, because I'm a liberal.

Look, obviously Bill's in an odd position because we've never had an ex-president's wife run for president before. But if he wants to be treated as an elder statesman figure for fellow progressives, he needs to act like one. If he wants to be Hillary Clinton's attack dog in a primary campaign, then he's going to be treated as one. Certainly he's not above criticism.

Comments

At Ezra's I mentioned how much more I would have admired Bill Clinton's interventions in U.S. politics had it been first deployed for the purpose of slowing the Bush Jr. Republican mobs' pillaging of U.S. governance, rather than the particular political advantages of his wife. I mean, before the Fox interview with Chris Wallace.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 2:23 PM

"If he wants to be Hillary Clinton's attack dog in a primary campaign, then he's going to be treated as one. Certainly he's not above criticism."

nor should Obama. given how poor Hillary has performed as a main leader of the Democratic opposition it is hard to imagine any Democratic contender running to her right, but Obama has managed to accomplish this. Congratulations! We now have not only our many Bush dogs to honor we also must genuflect before St. Reagan. What a wonderful choice: Clinton the big Democratic enabler on Iraq. And Obama who adopts Republican positions and heroes as he panders for right-wing votes.

Posted by della Rovere | January 21, 2008 2:25 PM

The worst part is that Bill Clinton is quite capable of painting a positive liberal vision of the world. He's much better at it than his wife (and most other politicians). Instead of capitalizing on this skill, he decides to operate as a hatchet man. Leave that to people the Clinton campaign can disavow or fire (like Bob Johnson or Bill Shaheen).

Posted by Jinchi | January 21, 2008 2:28 PM

I'm a bit soured on the Clinton team at the moment, but even early in the primary campaign when I was essentially neutral I wondered how Howard Wolfson could have a high level job in PR. He is loathesome. He ought to be selling real estate like one of the characters in Glen Garry Glen Ross. Frankly, McCauliffe isn't much better. Maybe they're around to make Hillary look good. She positively exudes integrity and charm compared to those cats.

Posted by Led | January 21, 2008 2:31 PM

No doubt the "he's reinforce right-wing frames" is a reasonable criticism to make at times. But since Bill Clinton was caught having an affair while President, everyone in America knows he lies sometimes. The ship has sailed. Obama has every right to dispute claims from President Clinton.

More interesting to me is to see how effective Bill Clinton has been in this attack dog role. It suggests to me that the Democrats did indeed make a mistake by having (more or less) "nice guys" as VP candidates in the last two election, rather than someone who would really attack. And obvious Gore (especially) and Kerry should have made more use of Bill.

Posted by John DE | January 21, 2008 2:33 PM

Clintons may win again, but their reputation is in tatters. The unexpected result for me these primaries is that the right-wing brandishments all those years, even if heavily applied, wind up being true after all: the Clintons are power-mad, are not good people, are rather mean and self-interested, and leave bodies in their wake, any bodies at all, and soon to be Obama.

Posted by Eric | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

Re John DE "But since Bill Clinton was caught having an affair while President, everyone in America knows he lies sometimes"
----------
You must be a Republican. Matthew explained the Wolfson rule above.

When Bill Clinton testified under oath that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, that must have been true too, because I'm a liberal.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 2:38 PM

First the Pope, and then Bill Clinton. How catching is this infallibility stuff? Frankly, the more I see of the Clintons on the campaign trail, the more I see them as a major part of what is wrong with the Democratic party. To use a metaphor: right now, the Democratic party has serious constipation, and the blockage is the old-style fake-liberal machine politicians and Bush-enablers like the Clintons and the Reids. The only good part about Hillary's march to defeat is that it gives Democrats the chance to be rid of their influence. Yes, four years of McCain is not ideal - but it might give the Democrats a chance to reassess, clean house, and, better yet, give the Republicans a chance to face the recession they created. I've supported the Democrats all my life, but I would never vote for the Clintons. Why put a pervert, a perjurer, an adulterer, an abuser of women back in the White House? And why should we support a carpet-bagger who has done nothing of substance, has been willing to do anything to get ahead at the expense of her party, and has run a campaign of smears, racism and vote-rigging? Damn it, if I wanted that aort of combination, I would have gone Republican years ago. Thus, I will vote for anyone over Hillary in November, because I want to see my party clean up its act and become a party that real Democrats can be proud of.

Posted by commentator | January 21, 2008 2:41 PM

I wonder how it will play out if the Clintons are restored to the White House in 2009 and the right begins attacking and smearing, and the media turns on them.

As a liberal, I might correct a friend if they say something blatantly untrue about the Clintons, but I certainly won't be proactive in defending them the way I was in the 90s and since.

With diminished regard among the left and ever more intense loathing from the right, I wonder if a Clinton restoration doesn't end up resembling a 4 year siege with no promise of reinforcements.

Posted by matthewcc | January 21, 2008 2:44 PM

Sorry Matt, but Bill didn't lie about Obama and the war. Obama gave a pretty speech in 2002, and has enabled Bush's war ever since. That's what Bill said, and it's the truth. Sorry, I know that Obama supporters think the guy is the second coming or something, but that's just way it is.

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 2:45 PM

I was wondering... Did Bush Sr. spend the 2000 primary campaign attacking John McCain? I certainly don't remember it, but then again I think everybody else was attacking McCain. Anyway, I don't think former presidents necessarily have to turn into attack dogs because a family member is running for their former office.

Posted by Mac | January 21, 2008 2:45 PM

And, Right Wing Talking Point or not, the man's a liar. He lied in spectacular fashion while in office, he's apparently not stopped lying while out of office.

It's not about being right or left, it's about being part of the reality based community. I refuse to pretend that things are other than as they are because they might be politically inconvenient.

If we do that, we're no better than the Bushistas.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 21, 2008 2:45 PM

The Clintons have been getting extraordinary mileage out of the kneejerk right-wing frames/attacks/conspiracy defense for years now. Because they can count on wingers to attack them for any naughty thing they do, they can therefore count on a certain proportion of Dems to rally around and help them cover up their messes. But isn't that old jalopy running on fumes by now?

WJC is hiding behind HRC. Because he is not the candidate, and never has to face the prospect of going head-to-head on a debate stage with Obama to defend his charges, he feels he has a license to do whatever the hell he wants. Anyway, he needs to go away. He's a walking embarrassment to the Democrats and every time I see him I literally experience a relapse of nineties nausea. He always makes me feel like I've just been groped.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 21, 2008 2:48 PM

"Sorry Matt, but Bill didn't lie about Obama and the war. Obama gave a pretty speech in 2002, and has enabled Bush's war ever since."

And Hillary's done what, exactly? At least Obama recognized the war as a mistake, when just about every other Democrat was afraid to say so, whatever he's done since then for political reasons.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 21, 2008 2:52 PM

"As a liberal, I might correct a friend if they say something blatantly untrue about the Clintons, but I certainly won't be proactive in defending them the way I was in the 90s and since."

That's basically how I feel. I will hold my nose and pull the lever for Hillary if it comes to that, but I won't be happy about it, and she is not going to get any advocacy from me on her behalf among my friends and acquaintances. If she fights for universal healthcare, I will defend it; but both she and Bill have soured me on the Clintons.

Posted by QWERTY | January 21, 2008 2:54 PM

I feel like vomiting when I see that sanctimonious old cracker trying to present himself as a loving husband. How many women did he grope, rape, molest, abuse? How many victims did he work his way through, while Hillary enabled him? If I were Karl Rove, seeing this disaster on wheels for the Democrats, I'd probably experience something between total happiness and enlightenment.

Posted by jacinth | January 21, 2008 2:55 PM

Bill Clinton is like a living version of the Liar's Paradox.

Posted by telchar | January 21, 2008 2:57 PM

I love the Clinton campaign. It's okay for them to lie, but it's bad for you to call them on it. It's okay for them to use surrogates to paint the other guy as the "scary black man" and "not black enough" but when you call them racists, you're the bad guy. Meanwhile, it's okay for them to scream "sexism" at the drop of a hat.

And dk, while Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, Clinton still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea. That's what your "35 years" of "experience" will get you.

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 3:00 PM

"Sorry Matt, but Bill didn't lie about Obama and the war." - dk

He has been sloppy with the truth at the very least. He constantly quotes Obama from 2004 when he said was not 100% sure how he would have voted, dishonestly leaving at the very next sentence where Obama stated that the case for war, in his view, had not been made.

Quoting Obama and leaving out the critical part of that statement is dishonest.

Sorry, dk, Bill Clinton is a liar. It's not an opinion, or a smear, or a talking point; its an objective fact and its why he can't practice law anymore.

Posted by matthewcc | January 21, 2008 3:00 PM

Bill Clinton has proven to be a pathological liar. Will some Billary shill please tell me why this doesn't matter?

Posted by Joe | January 21, 2008 3:05 PM

Does anyone want to see Madam Hillary and the First Pervert using the White House as a deep-fried Arkansas whorehouse? Why are women dumb enough to vote for someone who has enabled a sexual abuser for decades? What sort of feminist supports this sort of enabling spineless capitulation to an old-fashioned patriarchal pervert? As for Bill Clinton as a liar, it would take less time to figure out when he actually told the truth!

Posted by stopthehillarydroid | January 21, 2008 3:07 PM

"an elder statesman figure for fellow progressives"

Has Bill Clinton ever called himself a "progressive"? I've never thought of him as one and he certainly didn't govern as one.

Posted by Bloix | January 21, 2008 3:10 PM

"This is not conservative America, this is not liberal America, it is the United States of America". Barack Obama.

Good for Obama for pointing out merely that Reagan took people in another direction. Obama recognizes both Democrats and Republicans! For this I am so proud.

Tell me this...when and how does the division ever end and with whom? Give the guy some credit and have some faith and forsight in what it is he is trying to do. The guy is amazing.

W/F 43 South.

Posted by B | January 21, 2008 3:11 PM

"According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a "right-wing talking point" and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib."

What's the big deal? You liberals already threw away your integrity when you defended Bubba during impeachment by claiming he only lied about sex and was even entitled to lie because it was "private matter" between two consenting adults.

So why have any reservations now? He's counting on you to take another one for the team Clinton. You might as well pretend to be Monica and enjoy swallowing another one of his lies. LOL

Posted by Chicounsel | January 21, 2008 3:14 PM

Is Monica reputed to have swallowed?

Posted by Jay | January 21, 2008 3:18 PM

Mike, you're trying to change the subject. Matt wrote a post implying that Bill is lying. Well, in talking about Obama and the war, he was telling the truth. Obama gave a pretty speech in 2002 and has spent the rest of the time enabling the war.

And I find it highly ironic that people who sanctimoniously declare that they will "hold their nose" to vote for Hillary, or who declare they will vote for a republican before voting for Hillary, are so gaga over a candidate that is running to the right of her on just about every domestic issue, admires Ronald Reagan, and just made friends today (see Matt Stoller over at openleft.com on this) with his second homophobic minister.

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:18 PM

At a minimum, the argument schema:

X is or was a politician.
_______

X is a liar.

is still valid. It's not as if Bill can change the laws of logic.

Posted by Justin | January 21, 2008 3:18 PM

Probably my least favorite part of Bill being an attack dog and causing divisions in the party is that it brings out all the assholes like Chicounsel and stopthehillarydroid and jacinth to our message boards.

Hey folks, go crawl back under your rocks and pray for a brokered Gingrich nomination so that you can replay all Rush Limbaugh fantasies of the 90s again. Or maybe you're too busy rubbing out to the Ken Starr report.

Look, just because Bill is being a giant dick doesn't mean he killed Vince Foster.

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 3:22 PM

I was wondering... Did Bush Sr. spend the 2000 primary campaign attacking John McCain? I certainly don't remember it, but then again I think everybody else was attacking McCain.

No, he didn't. Part of that was Bush's temperament, and part was that the Bush family has always believed in outsourcing their sleaze (e.g. "Republicans for Clean Air" and "Swift Boat Veteran for Truth"). The Clintons have done some of that this time around (Shaheen, Kerrey, and who can tell the provenance of the "Muslim" e-mails), but the difference between Bush 41 and Bill Clinton is that Clinton can't shut up.

Obama needs a Hail Mary to pull this out, in my opinion, and campaigning against a third term may be the only option he has. Granted, a lot of Democratic voters wouldn't mind a third term, but Bill's conduct in recent days would have to give one pause about just whose administration it's going to be. Seriously, who is going to shut Bill up if his wife gets elected?

I thought the 10th anniversary of the Lewinsky business might give Obama an opening in that regard, but I was surprised that the anniversary was mostly not commented on by the political media.

Posted by ChuckE | January 21, 2008 3:23 PM

If the Clintons put half as much piss and vinegar into attacking and criticizing the Bush administration over the past 7 years -- you know, rather than voting for Bush's wars and so forth -- I might take them more seriously as "progressives."

Posted by jim | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM

"are so gaga over a candidate that is running to the right of her on just about every "

dk, what issues would these be? Not including a mandate in his health care plan? You can debate the wisdom of that, but it is neither left nor right.

And whatever Krugman says, there is plenty of liberals concerned about the long-term health of social security. Being proactive in ensuring it's here to stay is not "right wing." Things aren't left or right just because Clinton surrogates like Krugman declare they are.

Posted by matthewcc | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM

"And I find it highly ironic that people who sanctimoniously declare that they will "hold their nose" to vote for Hillary, or who declare they will vote for a republican before voting for Hillary, are so gaga over a candidate that is running to the right of her on just about every domestic issue"

DK, you might care to remember that most people find Obama and Edwards more progressive on gay rights, that they have not played the racist card, as Hillary and friends clearly have, and that they have engaged in voter-suppression, distortion of the records of others, or falsely claimed 35 years of experience. Look at your own sanctimoniousness first, eh? Some of us are real Democrats, and we don't appreciate being gamed by a liar, a Bush-enabler and her racist pervert of a husband.

Posted by echtdemocrat | January 21, 2008 3:26 PM

And I find it highly ironic that people who sanctimoniously declare that they will "hold their nose" to vote for Hillary, or who declare they will vote for a republican before voting for Hillary, are so gaga over a candidate that is running to the right of her on just about every domestic issue, admires Ronald Reagan, and just made friends today (see Matt Stoller over at openleft.com on this) with his second homophobic minister.-dk

The irony is that you're surprised people don't believe your bullshit.

Posted by Jake | January 21, 2008 3:26 PM

What amuses me about people like Ben is that they implicitly defend an abuser of women while protesting when people call Bill Clinton to account. I think we can see a split between Democrats and Hillaryites pretty clearly here.

Posted by jacinth | January 21, 2008 3:29 PM

"and just made friends today (see Matt Stoller over at openleft.com on this) with his second homophobic minister."

This one is just lame. We all have friends that are homophobic. I do, and it doesn't make me homophobic, it just makes them wrong.

But whereas the Clintons take gay advocacy money and then cheerfully pass (and brag about) anti-gay laws such as DOMA and Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, Obama has been incredibly brave. He went into a black church at a time he is depending on them to keep him in the race, and criticized the black community for not sticking up for gays. Clinton wouldn't do that; there's no triangulation value in it.

Posted by matthewcc | January 21, 2008 3:31 PM

Well, I think everyone knows that Stoller is hardly an honest source when reporting on Obama. Slightly less credible than Taylor Marsh.

Posted by melkom | January 21, 2008 3:32 PM

echtdemocrat, count me as one gay person who does not find Obama more progressive on gay issues. Obama threw gay people like myself under the bus with McClurkin. Period. And if you need more proof of Obama's two-faced attitudes toward gays, ask him why he welcomes the support of a minister whose ministry (until today, when people actually started linking to it) had a page up equating homosexuality with prostitution and sex addiction.

If you have some issues upon which you want to base your support for Obama on, fine. But I don't see any of that here (except for one response above seeming to argue that Obama is more progressive than Clinton because Obama opposes mandates to achieve universal healthcare and that believes that there is a social security crisis).

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:35 PM

Hitlery couldn't control her rabid dog in the 90's and she still can't. Apparently she's not the tough independent that she would like us to believe.

Posted by An Outhouse | January 21, 2008 3:36 PM

mekom, why don't you check out the link to the minister's webpage yourself. It was taken down today, but you can check the google cache. Oh, but then you can't change the subject by attacking the messenger eh? Oh no!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2cIPtxeUknQJ:www.kingdombuilders.com/templates/cuskingdombuilders/details.asp%3Fid%3D23260%26PID%3D236324%2B%22habitual%2Bsins%22%2Bsite:http://www.kingdombuilders.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:39 PM

Folks, please, give me a break, so I slept with Hillary a few times. It's not like I was cheating on Monica or Paula or Gennifer.

Posted by billclinton | January 21, 2008 3:45 PM

In my opinion, the Clintons' chronic dishonesty versus Obama's apparent honesty is the biggest difference between the candidates. It's amazing to me that so many Democrats are so used to dishonest machine politics that they're actually cheering for it. What is wrong with Obama? Well, he's too nice. He's not tough enough. He doesn't have all these shady DC connections to swing corrupt deals. And - oh my God - he would actively and graciously seek the three or four Republican votes he'd need to pass anything in the Senate, rather than never pass anything that corporate lobbyists don't want and then blame it all on gridblock.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 21, 2008 3:47 PM

DK, I think other people have already explained to you, in short, simple words why your argument is pathetic and dishonest. Read the webpages of the Obama, Edwards and Clinton campaigns and see what their policies are towards gay people. You might find it enlightening that Hillary just hopes that "the light will come". Pretty pathetic leadership, eh?

Posted by melkom | January 21, 2008 3:48 PM

Is it only me, or when Bill was shaking his finger and declaiming about Obama being a closet Reaganite, did anyone else flash back to, "I did not have sex with that woman"?

dk -- needless to say, you're an idiot to fall for that Obama-is-soft-on-the-war crap the Clintons have been peddling. Go check the facts, kiddo.

Posted by Traven | January 21, 2008 3:49 PM

dk, why did you miss out the two middle letters of your name? Was it too difficult to type i and c?

Posted by cj | January 21, 2008 3:52 PM

melkom, I think I have provided, in short, simple terms, actual substance that Obama supporters seem not to want to confront. For example, there are actual facts, actual statements by homophobic bigots that Obama curries favor with, and the only response Obama supporters can seem to come up with are ad hominems against the messengers.

Cult of personality is not a reason, in my view at least, to support a candidate for president. But you seem to disagree, and I realize I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:53 PM

el cid's initial comment on this thread is absolutely correct.
clinton's refusal to step forward and try to slow down the bush train wreck will always be a stain on his legacy. especially when one contrasts it to his current attack dog role in his wife's campaign.
this campaign and his behavior has also proven to me that one right-wing talking point has in fact been true. wingnuts always argued that clinton never really cared about anything and anyone but bill clinton.
his current behavior, i think, shows that to have been a correct assessment.
he did almost nothing to help the democratic party during his presidency, while he did a lot of things that hurt the democratic party.
(the proof is in the numbers: the house, the senate and the white house all changed over to the republican party during his tenure.)
and now, he will lie and attack and compromise his party, for the benefit of his wife. without an apparent thought about the longterm negative impact on what is supposed to be his party.
his true colors are being revealed now and he deserves all the criticism he gets.
he has gladly ripped and torn down members of his own party while he plays kissyface with the people who are destroying the country.
you learn something everyday.

Posted by frankie d | January 21, 2008 3:53 PM

So, Traven, I guess you are going to show me Obama's senate votes to cut off funding for the war. Or, his heroic stand against Kyl-Lieberman?

I think you are the one who has to check the facts (kiddo).

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:55 PM

You know, I never believed that line about gay men having crushes on Hillary, but when I look at little ol' dk here, I may just have to change my mind.

Posted by wjc | January 21, 2008 3:55 PM

Out of curiosity, dk, how does it feel to be knee-deep in water and staring at the pyramids?

Posted by melkom | January 21, 2008 3:57 PM

dk, you want progessive?

How about supporting pre-emptive war. Is that progressive? How about never announcing that your vote was a mistake, continuing to argue that it was the right vote, and therefore failing to deny that a state that had not attacked the US and was not a threat should not be invaded.

You want progressive? How about the Defense of Marriage Act?

You want progressive? How about Don't Ask Don't Tell?

You want progressive? How about NAFTA?

You want progressive? How about "ending welfare as we know it."

Bill Clinton lied about Obama's record. Obama gave a speech decrying the war as a mistake before we invaded. Obama said that he didn't know how he would have voted in their situation because he didn't have access to what the Senators had access to, but from his perspective the case was not made. It turns out the Senators didn't have access to a damned thing that made the case for war, and still voted with their eyes on re-election. Bill Clinton said Obama didn't know how he would have voted. A lie of omission is a lie.

Posted by Dan | January 21, 2008 3:57 PM

wjc, I don't necessarily deny the gay man's hillary crush. But, I have to say I'm even more amazed by the straight man crush on Obama I see in the comment section over here at Matt's site.

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 3:59 PM

So, dk, care to explain to us why Hillary didn't bother to read the intelligence reports before she authorized the Bush war in Iraq? Was she lazy? Incompetent? Or simply just running for cover at the first big test of her political integrity?

Posted by araksi | January 21, 2008 4:01 PM

But Dan, you're changing the subject again. The whole point of this post is that Bill Clinton is challenging Obama's self-identification as a strong anti-war progressive. Pointint out that Bill and Hillary Clinton have taken some positions that are not progressive do not help you to defend Obama against truthful assertions that his record is not as progressives as he wants people to believe. Is this really so difficult to understand?

Posted by dk | January 21, 2008 4:03 PM

Well, now we know why dk wastes his time defending the indefensible. True it is that love is blind! It is rather touching, in a dweeby sort of way.

Posted by bobolek | January 21, 2008 4:03 PM

It's amazing that you would defend HRC in an area where she was so obvious complicit, where she failed to even read the available intelligence, and where she obviously thought of nothing but her own political gain. Obama spoke out strongly in 2002, continued to do so in 2003, and has never said that he regards the war as justified. Hillary enabled Bush, has tried to pretend otherwise, and did so because she didn't care enough to stand up and be counted when it mattered.

Posted by araksi | January 21, 2008 4:06 PM

dk,

Does it pay well, being a troll? Are there many prospects for career advancement? What sort of education does it require?

I hadn't ever thought of it as a career, but you make it seem so easy--pick a couple of convenient "facts", make up a story about them, and then repeat them despite any evidence to the contrary. But maybe it's just deceptively simple and you have a special talent for it.

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 4:14 PM

That's a peculiar argument dk. All you're proving, particularly by citing Kyl-Lieberman, is that Obama is possibly holding the same views at Clinton. I know it's hard, but try to employ logic and reason every now and then.

But, wait, you say 'kiddo' ... you win. Say we're all using 'right-wing talking points' and you'll reveal your true identity as Howard Wolfson.

Posted by Jmac | January 21, 2008 4:19 PM

dk, apparently you missed my final point, which was the following:

Bill Clinton lied about Obama's record on the war. Explain to me how his comment about Obama's statement on the war vote was not a lie of omission.

As to my points about progressivism, you're the one who said Obama was running to Hillary's right. I was just pointing out that Hillary is to Hillary's right -- including on the war!

Posted by Dan | January 21, 2008 4:26 PM

Jmac,

The thing is, the whole purpose of the Clinton campaign's Iraq argument is to push the Obamites into saying that Obama=Clinton on Iraq. This neutralizes one of Obama's biggest selling point--he is the only one in the race that has been right the whole time on Iraq.

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 4:29 PM

Was I the only one who detected a refusal by dk to explain why Hillary didn't even bother to read the available intelligence before enabling Bush's war? For someone who claims to be a good manager, Hillary is either a liar, or stunningly incompetent/lazy in important things.

Posted by santini | January 21, 2008 4:31 PM

There is the decade and a half Obama spent advocating for low income people on the South Side. There is the brave stance he took against police interrogation techniques. There is the health insurance legislation he got passed in Illinois. There is his advocacy on behalf of voting rights. There is his promotion of ethics and transparency. There is his consistent, 5.5 year long opposition to the Iraq war. And lastly, there is his support of gay rights. Just as Catholic politicans can be pro-choice, Obama can disagree with Rev. Wright.

Two other points are worth making.

(1) Obama's notion of transcendence is the exact opposite of triangulation. Triangulation takes the status quo as a given, and sells out your own side. That always and eternally benefits the right, and it's fair to say on that basis that Clinton didn't move the country as deeply or as far as Reagan did.

(2) Obama's a solid liberal (I hate this "progressive" sh*t), but that doesn't mean he doesn't see that conservatives can have good faith reasons for believing what they do. Morally bankrupt politicans on the R side doesn't mean morally bankrupt constituents. Also, whether an idea is "left" or "right" is neither necessary nor sufficient to knowing whether it's a good idea. More often than not, the left view is better, to a degree, but it's worth hearing out the other side. That's the Univ. of Chicago way.

Posted by David B. | January 21, 2008 4:36 PM

I just don't understand how people become so committed to dishonest smears the way that DK has. By now he probably even believes them. It requires a degree of self-deception that I can't really comprehend. If you really believe one candidate is better than another, why can't you make a case for it in fair and honest terms? Reality is just so much more interesting.

Posted by J.B. | January 21, 2008 4:36 PM

RE ChuckE's comment "Seriously, who is going to shut Bill up if his wife gets elected?"
---------------
The Secret Service.

Query: If Hillary divorces Bill's ass, then does that mean he can't enter the White House grounds
if she gives the order?

I suspect Wild Bill's gonna learn that lesson: "Payback's a bitch".

However, I doubt that Hillary will divorce him. She's not gonna let him off that easy.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 4:37 PM

Imagine that Gore had given Clinton the ok to do a job on young W. in 2000. Think of all that the country would have been spared.

Posted by bob h | January 21, 2008 4:51 PM

Ezra Klein made the observation that Over the past seven years, Clinton has largely checked his criticisms of Bush and bit his tongue in order to retain his role as a statesman.

I think this observation has been really under-explored. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, all kinds of people with "elder statesman" cred chose to put it aside because they saw that what George Bush was doing was absolutely horrible and they wanted to rouse the nation to force him to change his direction.

Not Bill Clinton, though. Beyond his support for Iraq, he was appalling in a number of other ways. His actions on Katrina were just inexcusable. On Wednesday Sept 1, while people were dying without water in the Superdome, he wasn't on TV saying "we need to get FEMA here, the National Guard, the Red Cross, this is inexcusable."

Nope, he was doing a joint press conference photo-op with Bush where Bush was rattling off all the great stuff he was doing in response to Katrina. This press conference was a day before Bush told Brownie he was doing "a heck of a job," the day he said "no one anticipated the breech of the levees." The same day that people trying to take a bridge out of the city were turned back by armed Gretna police. Two days before Shep Smith and Geraldo Rivera did their report from the bridge with trapped Katrina victims. And Clinton was doing photo-ops with Bush in the oval office.

Time and time again, when Bush had an approval rating over 40%, no matter what the guy did, Clinton was all "oh, I have to keep myself above the political fray for the greater good" when it came to criticizing Bush.

And now we see just how totally hollow that excuse was. He was willing to attack Bush once it was clear the American people had turned against him. And now he's thrown himself into the fray against Obama in a way he NEVER did against Bush. And Obama's only offense appears to be that he threatens Bill Clinton's wife's political career.

If Bill Clinton had been one tenth as tough going after George Bush back when it mattered, we might not be in the mess we're in today. But he wasn't, and here we are, where Bill Clinton "leader" of his party, goes after an excellent candidate while having held his tongue during the worst excesses of arguably this nation's worse president.

What inspiring leadership! Our nation needs 4 more years of this!

Posted by anonymiss | January 21, 2008 4:54 PM

bob h,

yeah, why is it that Bill only attacks liberal democrats?

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 4:55 PM

Cool, there's finally a leak in the dike; At this rate, we'll have Democrats admitting that Filegate wasn't just some silly accident about 2016, and connecting the dots between campaign donations from the Chinese government and technology transfers sometime in the late '20s. :)

But I expect the heat death of the universe before you admit that Gore really did lose, both times. LOL!

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 21, 2008 5:40 PM

There is the decade and a half Obama spent advocating for low income people on the South Side. There is the brave stance he took against police interrogation techniques. There is the health insurance legislation he got passed in Illinois. There is his advocacy on behalf of voting rights. There is his promotion of ethics and transparency. There is his consistent, 5.5 year long opposition to the Iraq war. And lastly, there is his support of gay rights. Just as Catholic politicans can be pro-choice, Obama can disagree with Rev. Wright.

Plus, his favorite character on The Wire is Omar.

Who wants to bet Omar takes down Marlo's whole crew??? He looked pissed in that last scene!

Posted by Peter K. | January 21, 2008 5:54 PM

Oh dear, a Republican who finds the chance to unleash the most labored attempt at wit since George Bush claimed there were WMD in Iraq. What next, Brett, writing jokes for Paul Wolfowitz?

Posted by cj | January 21, 2008 5:54 PM

I'm guessing the dk is not old enough to have been following politics closely during the first Clinton administration. Either that or there is some serious selective memory going on with regards to "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA. If you trust the Clinton's rhetoric on gay issues after these two incidents, you are a fool. Clinton had his strong points as President, but this wasn't one of them.

Posted by ikl | January 21, 2008 6:46 PM

I think by now that we all know that the HRC campaign regards "fact" as equivalent to "Rightwing Talking Point". Does this mean that we should reverse the equation and accept that all the other rightwing talking points were all true? The mind boggles at the implications!

Posted by nickzi | January 21, 2008 6:53 PM

This question about Hillary enabling President Bush's war is bogus. Didn't the country have a chance to reelect a Democrat and maybe change the direction in Iraq? How did all of you vote in 2004? It almost sounds like elevator music on this blog about this topic.

On the subject of a Progressive candidate, the Welfare Reform Act that was passed is working. My job enables me to work with Welfare to Work families and prepare clients for the job market. I see it everyday, and it is breaking the cycle of poverty. Are there many obstacles? You bet! However, for the clients with numerous barriers to the workforce, there are programs in place to ease the transition.

The change all of you seem to want doesn't happen with mean spirited people. I think the country already made a decision about President Clinton's character and moved on. If you folks are so desperate for a decent government, stop the hate and do something nice for someone today.

Posted by EWard | January 21, 2008 7:10 PM

Like EWard said:

LEAVE BILL ALOOOOOOOONE!

/wipes away tear-stained mascara

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 7:12 PM

EWard, can't you just come out and admit that you are HRC? And while we are on the subject, Madam Hillary, why did you fail to read the intelligence estimate before you voted to go to war with Iraq? Hmmm? And why did you let Bill abuse women? Hmmm? Any response, or are these just facts - I mean, rightwing talking points?

Posted by sashaqz | January 21, 2008 7:17 PM

Re Eward comment "The change all of you seem to want doesn't happen with mean spirited people."
---------
By "mean spirited people", are you referring to a Senator who sent 3900 soldiers to their death -- and ensured thousands more would be horribly disabled for life -- simply because she didn't want to risk her "political career"???

There are two possibilities re Hillary Clinton: Either
a) She was too calculating, selfish, and self-centered to do her duty as a US Senator, or
b) She was so fucking stupid she was conned by the village idiot, George W Bush

Either way, she's unqualified to be President.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 8:02 PM

So, dk, care to explain to us why Hillary didn't bother to read the intelligence reports before she authorized the Bush war in Iraq? Was she lazy? Incompetent? Or simply just running for cover at the first big test of her political integrity?

Posted by araksi | January 21, 2008 4:01 PM

She was busy keeping her desk neat and managing the bureaucracy.

Posted by Pug | January 21, 2008 8:02 PM

On the other hand, if Obama doesn't have the balls to point out the above to Democratic voters, then maybe he doesn't have what it takes to be President either.

NOT to be meanspirited, but because Obama's overriding concern should be for the welfare of this country's people. Hillary has amply demonstrated that she will be just as big a disaster for us as George W Bush -- and for many of the same reasons.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 8:06 PM

I can’t understand why so many are still so enamored with the Clintons.

The Clintons set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that justified BushCo to say and do whatever they want.... “because they can”. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, “because he could”.

Folks, it was not a very good eight years….. Heath care reform debacle, the Republican landslide, I did not have sex with that women… depends on the definition of what the word “is” is, the right wing conspiracy… lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ, stained dress as evidence, DNA tests, Whitewater, Hillary’s destroyed documents, the small investment that magically turned into a fortune, Marc Rich and cash for Pardons. All of the missed opportunities and lost years because of Monica.

Don’t we deserve a chance at something better?

Posted by doug | January 21, 2008 8:51 PM

Look Matt, I think you're about my age (25) so you should remember enough about the 90's to realize that Bill Clinton is a special, special man and the rules that govern the rest of us don't apply. The same as the next guy to hold his job, and probably the guys who came before too.

Posted by aleks | January 22, 2008 12:01 AM

The Clintons have been masters at selling the Clinton brand at the expense of liberalism and the Democratic Party. The whole point of Obama's 2004 quote was to give cover to Kerry and Edwards during the election campaign. He could have been a douche and decided to go with the "I'm the smartest guy in the room" meme, but instead put the party, the election and the actual on the ground facts in Iraq (which would have been better at least on the margins under Kerry-Edwards) before his career. Such an idea is alien to the Clintons. Under Clinton, we became the minority party in Congress, in several state house, in the majority of governor's mansions, etc. More elected officials changed their affiliation from Dem to Republican than vice versa under Clinton. His inability to keep it in his pants probably cost us 8 years of a liberal, successful Gore presidency. Don't be surprised that if Hillary wins, she turns out to have a 4-year Carter term with a primary challenge in 2012 from her left.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 12:31 AM

Bill believes his legacy will outlast the bad press he gets from this experience. Bush has survived calling McCain the father of an illegitimate black child. He can survive destroying the reputation of a Democratic political upstart.

Posted by dave | January 22, 2008 12:33 AM

dk, while I share your reservations about Obama's pastor, that has not actually translated into policy. Clinton passed DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He threw the LBGT community under the bus. Meanwhile, Obama has actually challenged the homophobia spouted in black churches while giving speeches in black churches. That line about "having some gay friends in the Red States" was autobiographical (apparently they moved after that election due to even more restrictive homophobic legislation passing). We would all love it if Kucinich wasn't the only one willing to fully embrace gay marriage, but you aren't shilling here for Kucinich, but the former Goldwater supporter and College Republicans president who lists Reagan as one of her favorite presidents on her website.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 12:37 AM

Also, I'm only partway through season 1 on bittorent, but Omar is the fucking man.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 12:45 AM

If you are the type of person who is inspired by either Bill Clinton or George Bush, your hero was probably your high school principal.

Posted by Lewis Black | January 22, 2008 1:00 AM

When up against the Rove machine I prefer Hill to Barack. Just being practical. For those who specialise in Clinton put downs: go out and do something yourself and see how tough it is. The Clintons faced a Republican hate machine of some magnitude packed with philanderers of their own: Gingrich and at least 4 other Republican congress critters. Ken Starr was a piece of work. The MSM??? I have this awful feeling that people who actually lived through those horrible days, the voters, were able to distinguish between Bill the awful private man and Bill the President. His 60% approval said it all. Voters distinguished between the personal and political.So why don't we trust the voters. In the end they shed light while the blogs provide heat. And for those who always take the high moral stance (not like Craig's) go ahead and throw your stones.

Posted by Alan | January 22, 2008 7:55 AM

Alan, how much did Clinton actually accomplish after 1994? Healthcare reform failed. He did balance the budget, but balancing the budget was a bipartisan goal that leans more right than a progressive goal. The same goes for welfare reform. The tech boom was a much a result of policy inertia unleashed by Gore's leadership in Congress before Clinton (and Gore has definitely divorced himself from the Clintons) as much as a result of Clinton getting out of the way. Kosovo was a success, but we don't exactly need more reliance on pure air power these days. Then you also have how Clinton ended up giving cover to the neocons when he tried to outflank them and failed, especially on the Iraq Liberation Act. His more progressive foreign policy attempts, such as getting the US to sign onto Kyoto and the ICC, enforcing labor laws in Northern Marianas to shut down sex slavery on US-controlled soil there, Israel-Palestine, etc. were pretty much failures.

People act like that just because Clinton was popular once the Republicans overplayed their hand that Clinton got stuff done. He was a good micromanager, but he wasted 8 years on the foreign policy side in putting forth a coherent argument for what American post-Cold War foreign policy would be. Just because he didn't die or have a nervous breakdown during the State of the Union or something doesn't mean he was a success in beating off the Republicans. If he had been, Gore would have easily cruised to victory on a clear mandate. Clinton has surrounded herself with the Clinton people that only see incompetence when looking at Bush and the neocons instead of a completely wrong approach. Having the bully pulpit and knowing how to spin in front of Chris Wallace to make an obvious little shit look like a little shit don't matter if you don't actually put them to good use instead of worrying about school uniforms, Sista Souljah, flag burning and violent video games.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 8:36 AM

"The tech boom was a much a result of policy inertia unleashed by Gore's leadership in Congress before Clinton (and Gore has definitely divorced himself from the Clintons) as much as a result of Clinton getting out of the way. "

Was it? Or didn't epochal developments like the spread of cheap, affordable home computers and Internet access drive the 90s boom somewhat more than "Gore's leadership in Congress"?

In reality, policy and leadership had next to nothing to do with it. Invention met Opportunity and decided to get a hotel room. Clinton-Gore peered in the window, voyeuristically cheerleading the NASDAQ bubble while blessing the mergers, downsizing and benefits cuts that marked the administration's GOP-lite market fundamentalism.

Posted by HC | January 24, 2008 4:34 AM