Reich vs. Clinton

A number of people have written to me in a very excited tone about Robert Reich's blast in the direction of Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's worth noting in this regard that even though Reich served in the Clinton cabinet and is an old friend of Bill's from Oxford, it's not really all that surprising. His memoir of his years in government is quite critical of the Clinton administration, so it's not shocking to see that he's not eager for a Clinton Restoration.

The main thing I would take away from the fracas is that Reich has been a from the left critic of Clintonism on economics, precisely the set of issues on which Obama's been criticized as insufficiently right-wing. As a bonus, Reich and Paul Krugman seem to have some kind of longstanding feud, so this can serve as more grist for the mill.

Comments

I am a lifelong dem. Bill Clinton is a piece of shit.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 24, 2008 6:41 PM

economics, precisely the set of issues on which Obama's been criticized as insufficiently right-wing.

Huh? By whom? Explain please.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 6:41 PM

I don't put much stock into either Reich or Krugman when it comes to this primary. They've clearly let their dislike for one of the candidates get in the way of their analysis. It's a pity because they're both very smart guys.

Posted by Mike | January 24, 2008 6:42 PM

Remember also that Reich endorsed Bill Bradley over Al Gore in 2000, so he's been off the Clinton reservation for a very long time.

Posted by Shawn | January 24, 2008 6:43 PM

One thing's for sure. If Hillary does win this thing, there's going to be a long and bloody purge.

While Reich has been on the outs with the Clintons for some time, you do have to admire the courage of many of Obama's other endorsers. These are people who know how to read the polls.

Posted by southpaw | January 24, 2008 6:49 PM

ya, doh.

an old friend of Bill's from Oxford

A friendship which basically ended when he was basically fired/resigned as Labor Sec. for being too left. I thought everyone knew this. Clintons and Reich were civil enemies for several years. He was bitter about it, too. Actually, as of the last couple of years, it's interesting, Reich has come around to less lefty arguments on his blog and in articles, along the lines of "don't blame Wal-Mart," has gotten more "Krugmanian." Kids these days.

Posted by artappraiser | January 24, 2008 6:56 PM

Reich's is only one of many blasts. The anger at Bill Clinton is palpable. I've had dem friends phone me -- who were strong supporters -- calling him a lying piece of garbage.

The party elders are going to have to call a press conference and tell this clown to STFU. There will be NO healing after this fiasco.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 24, 2008 7:02 PM

Tuvok and the Oborg have two settings: win/happy/gloat and lose/sad/whine

Posted by fight the hive mind | January 24, 2008 7:18 PM

Reich and Paul Krugman seem to have some kind of longstanding feud

Heh. You can't have read Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity". IIRC, he totally trashes Reich in that book!

Posted by Amit Joshi | January 24, 2008 7:18 PM

Reich is a pompous fool and always had been and you would know that if you were forced to listen to any his dronings. Krugman is an economist, Reich pretends.

The more the Clintons are critized by the likes of the above crazies, the more I admire them.

Posted by Jennifer | January 24, 2008 7:32 PM

precisely the set of issues on which Obama's been criticized as insufficiently right-wing.

I think you meant insufficiently left-wing, no?

Posted by Gee | January 24, 2008 7:49 PM

Al Gore is now arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. It's too bad that people don't seem to care. I don't understand that.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/gore-defends-same-sex-marriage/

Posted by Neil | January 24, 2008 7:52 PM

Jennifer, could we hear the reasons why you claim that Reich "only pretends" to be an economist? Or is that standard of reasonable proof too much to demand from a HillBilly?

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 8:04 PM

"Reich is a pompous fool and always had been and you would know that if you were forced to listen to any his dronings."

I must be 10 times a pompous fool, because I audited his class at Brandeis, then lapped up extra dronings at his Friday breakfasts.

He's certainly left wing, and his ideas have always been controversial, but he has been tolerant of divergant views. Only an ungrateful nitwit would fail to take advantage of him on a college campus.

Posted by Jonathan Dworkin | January 24, 2008 8:04 PM

Concerning Krugman vs. Reich. Heres an excerpt from an article in Slate by Krugman dated Oct. 25, 1996:

Like much of what Reich says, this story is clear, compelling, brilliantly packaged, and mostly wrong. Stiglitz, by contrast, is telling the complicated truth rather than an emotionally satisfying fiction.

To understand why Reich is wrong (about this and most other things), think about the strange case of the missing children. During the early 1980s, sensationalist journalism ... snip ... convinced much of the public that America is a nation where vast numbers of children are snatched from their happy families by mysterious strangers every year.

... snip ...

Corporate downsizing is neither as terrible nor as rare as stranger abduction, but the two phenomena share some characteristics. Like stranger abductions, downsizing is a camera-ready tragedy, perfect for media exploitation, that is only a minor part of the real problem.

See http://www.slate.com/id/1911/ for more.

Posted by Eric G | January 24, 2008 8:06 PM

I am a lifelong dem. Bill Clinton is a piece of shit.

Have there been any national general election polls done in the last couple of weeks?

Because there have been an astounding amount of self-proclaimed loyal Democratic voters who say things like this. That up until recently they would have voted for the party's candidate no matter who it is, but after the last couple of weeks, they simply cannot vote for Hillary in November.

Admittedly, the blogosphere is not representative of the voting public but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary's general election support among Dems has slipped significantly recently.

Posted by Tractarian | January 24, 2008 8:07 PM

EricG.. would you care to explain the point you were trying to make? I see some pretty Krugman prose, with no great substance and an arguable talkingpoint depending on context.

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 8:08 PM

More Obambis threatening to take their ball home
if they don't win the game.
I am stunned.

Posted by grow up | January 24, 2008 8:15 PM

I'll give Matt Ygelsias this - if you want to read his posts, you'd better be prepared to do some work trying to figure out what he's saying.

No lazy readers here.

Posted by Jason C. | January 24, 2008 8:15 PM

> Corporate downsizing is neither as terrible nor
> as rare as stranger abduction, but the two
> phenomena share some characteristics. Like
> stranger abductions, downsizing is a camera-ready
> tragedy, perfect for media exploitation, that is
> only a minor part of the real problem.

I wonder what Krugman thinks of those words now. I wonder what he will think of them in the depths of this recession, now that we have to stop propping up our economy by building cornfield mansions with borrowed Chinese money.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 24, 2008 8:16 PM

Re: Reich not being an economist

Normally one qualification for being an economist is, how to put this gently, formal training in economics. Despite his academic position, Reich doesn't have a Ph.D. in anything; so far as I can tell his highest degree was a JD. (One of the perils of policy studies.) I don't mean to imply that one can't be an X-ist without a PhD in X, but we wouldn't consider one of Bush's old buddies an astrophysicist simply because he was appointed head of NASA. See my point?

Posted by ljkas | January 24, 2008 8:19 PM

Oh for the day when Krugman is abducted and his sumptuous mansion burnt to the ground on camera. Of course, it would only be a minor part of the real solution.

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 8:20 PM

Krugman is an economist, Reich pretends.

For all of you who are not economists -- god bless you, by the way! -- you must keep in mind that ALL economists only pretend to be economists when they speak publicly.

75% is politics, 25% is economics.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 24, 2008 8:23 PM

My impression has always been that Reich deals with public policy and related economics rather than hard economics per se, and has never pretended otherwise.

Posted by kasillder | January 24, 2008 8:25 PM

I am somewhat concerned that Hillary advisors (foreign and economic) tend to be from the Reid/Feinstein/Rockefeller wing of the party, i.e. no liberals.

Posted by Mr Nice Guy | January 24, 2008 8:29 PM

How many liberals do you see on Team Obama?
His economic team is to the right of Clinton's.

Posted by hard to find liberals anywhere | January 24, 2008 8:32 PM

...there have been an astounding amount of self-proclaimed loyal Democratic voters who say ... ... they simply cannot vote for Hillary in November.

The conventional wisdom is that wounds will heal by the fall, and dems will vote for their nominee. But this clown, Bill Clinton -- and that is exactly what he has turned into -- might defy conventional wisdom. I don't have ANY friends who are republicans -- NONE. And my friends, to a person, think his behavior is disgraceful and divisive.

As I have pointed out on other blogs, I have 5 black women on my staff aged 23 to 55 or so. To a person, they are extremely angry.

Kennedy, Biden, Dodd or all of them together are going to have to tell this clown publicly to STFU -- before irreparable damage is done to the party.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 24, 2008 8:38 PM

jacinth... I'm wasn't really trying to make a point. I was just backing up Amit Joshi, who read Krugman's book Peddling Prosperity and remembers some pretty harsh criticism of Reich.

While searching for material I got distracted by the content of the article which is probably surprising to some fans of Krugman's more recent columns in the NYT.

Krugman is a harsh critic so it doesn't surprise me that he is not a fan of Obama's "why can't we all just get along" style.

Posted by Eric G | January 24, 2008 8:45 PM

"The main thing I would take away from the fracas is that Reich has been a from the left critic of Clintonism on economics, precisely the set of issues on which Obama's been criticized as insufficiently right-wing. As a bonus, Reich and Paul Krugman seem to have some kind of longstanding feud, so this can serve as more grist for the mill."

Reich's a job seeker. Krugman's a writer. Job seekers need patrons.

That cynicism out of the way, Reich's criticisms here are entirely on the mark.

I actually find Reich's line of attack on Clinton and Krugman's line of attack on Obama both to be incredibly cogent and on target.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 8:52 PM

Petey, this isn't one of your closet "remember John Edwards our national savior" pieces, is it? Just wondering...

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 8:56 PM

I actually find Reich's line of attack on Clinton and Krugman's line of attack on Obama both to be incredibly cogent and on target.

I'd love to see Edwards come in 2nd in South Carolina. Ambinder says it's possible.

But the New York Times just endorsed Hillary. I disapprove.

Posted by southpaw | January 24, 2008 8:58 PM

How many liberals do you see on Team Obama?
His economic team is to the right of Clinton's.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. And her advisors all seem to be more interested in balancing the budget than addressing some of the underlying problems of wage stagnation and the income gap.

Posted by Mr Nice Guy | January 24, 2008 9:10 PM

How many liberals do you see on Team Obama?
His economic team is to the right of Clinton's.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. And her advisors all seem to be more interested in balancing the budget than addressing some of the underlying problems like wage stagnation and the income gap.

Posted by Mr Nice Guy | January 24, 2008 9:11 PM

"Petey, this isn't one of your closet "remember John Edwards our national savior" pieces, is it? Just wondering..."

Well, yes it is, of course, but it's also what I really think.

I find Clinton an incredibly unappealing candidate for reasons along the lines of what Reich has been laying out. (Along with some other important negative factors.)

I find Obama an incredibly unappealing candidate for reasons along the lines of what Krugman has been laying out.

On balance, I find Obama a bit less unappealing than Clinton, but it seems clear to me the Party could do better in '08 than either Coke or Pepsi.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 9:17 PM

"But the New York Times just endorsed Hillary. I disapprove."

I'd expect them to do so just as I'd expect the Chicago Tribune to endorse Obama.

Ambinder's surprise seemed naive to me.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 9:21 PM

Petey, I think I found the closet version more convincing *s*. What convinces you that Edwards has an economic plan that he could deliver?

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 9:21 PM

Hey Petey, Reich is a job seeker, Krugman is a writer, what is Feingold?

"I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

"The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

"When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 24, 2008 9:25 PM

"What convinces you that Edwards has an economic plan that he could deliver?"

The ultra-short answer:

He can assemble the most potent left-center electoral coalition. He's the most committed to progressive policy solutions. And thus he'll be most able to move the Beltway consensus to our terms.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 9:27 PM

I don't think it's fair to accuse either of selling out to one candidate or another, but it does seem like there's a hidden argument underneath this one. As Reich puts it "For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands."

But there's something both Krugman in his attack on Obama and Reich in his attack on Clinton's attack on Obama both clearly have in the back of their heads as they write. If Obama is saying what Bill Clinton said as a candidate--that Democrats sat on their hands for years--that's actually a huge slam against Bill Clinton. Saying the same thing four terms later doesn't mean the same thing. Bill triangulated our party from the right. In slamming Bill's centrist new ideas as non-ideas, Obama's attacking Bill's legacy from the left.

I'm sympathetic to those who find the subtlety of this aggravating and much prefer Edwards's more straight forward approach, but the message doesn't seem to be lost on Krugman and Reich--not that Krugman is a centrist, but in the 90s he kinda was.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 24, 2008 9:31 PM

Petey, what makes you think the Beltway consensus can be shifted so far, if at all? I am not unsympathetic, but I can easily see a coalition of obstructionist Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats stopping any such hope dead in its tracks.

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 9:36 PM

"Hey Petey, Reich is a job seeker, Krugman is a writer, what is Feingold?"

A senator.

-----

I'd obviously prefer to have Feingold as a primary ally, but things haven't shaken out that way. Feingold chosen to focus on Edwards Senate voting record, when Edwards was following Bob Shrum as his political compass, back before he figured out that he had a better political compass himself that he could rely on.

Feingold shouldn't support Edwards if he thinks Edwards hasn't grown significantly since 2002. But I do find Feingold's unwillingness to recognize that growth odd. That said, I respect Feingold even if I don't agree with him here. Edwards will have to settle for having the bulk support from the left, rather than all of the support.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 9:36 PM

"Petey, what makes you think the Beltway consensus can be shifted so far, if at all?"

For all the recent Obama/Reagan brouhaha, I think find the 1980 election to really be a model for how you move the Beltway consensus.

Reagan ran in 1980 as an out of the mainstream conservative. He embraced Movement Conservative groups in a way that previous Republican candidates had been unwilling to do. Pundits and the Carter WH both thought he was too far to the right to win.

But Reagan was a strong personality candidate, he had an electoral year with the wind at his party's back, and thus he was able to score a big electoral win. And most importantly, because he had run proudly as a too-far-to-the-right candidate, he was able to gain validation for his previously out of the mainstream ideas.

I see Edwards enthusiasm is championing progressive policy solutions, his willingness to embrace Movement Progressives to a degree national Dems normally won't, along with his huge general election potential, as having a very good shot at moving the tectonic plates of Washington towards his partisan allies in the same manner Reagan managed to move them in 1980.

In short: run loudly and proudly on out of the Beltway mainstream ideas, win big, and you can pull Washington to the ideas you ran on.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 9:55 PM

Petey, I am not trying get into a slanging match, and I do genuinely sympathize with your wish for the future, but wouldn't you agree that we have now seen how easy it is for a minority in Congress and Senate (admittedly a narrow one in the latter case) to frustrate a majority? Aren't you also assuming that Edwards can a) tame the Blue Dogs, b) make more ground in the midterm elections c) overcome entrenched and non-progressive interest groups? This sounds like quite an act, even given the favorable conditions/Reaganesque performance you mention. Also, in a sceptical mode - doesn't Edwards' performance in the Democratic primary suggest that the consensus is not there for the ideas he proposes?

Posted by jacinth | January 24, 2008 10:00 PM

Petey, since we are talking hypotheses here, what do you think Edwards should/would do, in the event of a brokered convention, and why?

Posted by nickzi | January 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Mr. NG,

You are right. I was listening to NPR today as they discussed the stimulus package and everyone was talking about fixing Social Security, Medicare and the defecit/debt. That will likely be the economic focus of either an Obama or Clinton administration.

I find it interesting that media only focus on balanced budgets when Democrats are in the White House or about to be. They also all seem to forget about the three Bush tax cuts when discussing where the surplus went.

Posted by hard to find liberals anywhere | January 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Please... Obama vs. Clinton is a love fest compared to Kennedy Vs Johnson, and Kennedy asked Johnson to be his VP afterwards.

Posted by Njorl | January 24, 2008 10:27 PM

"wouldn't you agree that we have now seen how easy it is for a minority in Congress and Senate (admittedly a narrow one in the latter case) to frustrate a majority? Aren't you also assuming that Edwards can a) tame the Blue Dogs, b) make more ground in the midterm elections c) overcome entrenched and non-progressive interest groups? This sounds like quite an act, even given the favorable conditions/Reaganesque performance you mention."

It would indeed be quite an act, which is why I'm passionate about the opportunity Edwards presents.

As far as the minority frustrating the majority in Congress, let's look at four Congresses:

'07-'08 - Minority frustrates majority because the minority has the Presidential veto in its pocket.

'01-'02 & '03-'04 - Minority repeatedly rolled by majority.

'93-'94 - Minority frustrates majority on healthcare because the WH produces a lousy healthcare plan that they haven't taken through the fire of the Presidential election. Minority loses to the majority on the budget, guns, and many other issues.

'81-'82 - Despite having a minority in the House, Reagan is able to easily create a majority working coalition because of the tectonic plates he was able to shift in the '80 election. His rightward working majority coalition repeatedly rolls the left opposition.

Nominate Edwards, who will proudly run on his healthcare plan during the fall campaign, get up to 55+ Senate votes - which I think will be easy with Edwards at the top of the ticket - have the Presidential election called for Edwards early in the evening, and I think passing universal healthcare in calendar 2009 is close to a lock.

(And FWIW, the Blue Dogs will be the first to fall in line by virtue of Edwards running better than the usual national Dem in Blue Dog districts. They won't feel the need to distance themselves from the national party that they normally do. It's not accident that Heath Schuler is running around SC for Edwards.)

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2008 10:28 PM

Supposing that we have a brokered convention, Petey, with Obama and Clinton more or less in a dead heat - what should Edwards do?

Posted by nickzi | January 24, 2008 10:33 PM

The same people who saved us from the horrors of a Humphrey presidency in 1968 --
and saved us from a second term of the Carter maladministration --
and saved us from that lying nasty Al Gore in 2000

are now going to save us from the unspeakable gut-wrenching nightmare of a Hilary Clinton presidency in 2008, should she win the nomination because they don't like the way that Bill Clinton campaigned for her.

When they are all sitting around in 2010, kvetching because no one really is willing to go to the mat to oppose Rudy McRomneybee, do we get to tell them to take a hike, then?

No matter what you think of Bill Clinton, there is absolutely no way that not voting, or voting for a Republican in 2008 is a progressive act.

Jeebus, folks, get some perspective here.

Posted by tom in ma | January 24, 2008 10:40 PM

Tom in ma.. you have a brilliant idea in the first half of your piece (except for being unfair to Gore). Yes, HRC is gutwrenching, and we ought not to vote for her - total agreement. But then you somehow manage to equate progressivism with the Clintons in the second part. That is absolutely no way a progressive act, and simply doesn't match the Clintons' record - in or out of office. Sorry, but where is the progressive nature in voting for a fraud and a carpetbagger, rather than accepting our losses, cleaning up the party and fighting for a real progressive agenda four years later? If anything, accepting HRC as the least worst option will delay much-needed reform of the Democratic party, and that's too much of a price to pay.

Posted by zavulon | January 24, 2008 10:53 PM

Nominate Edwards, who will proudly run on his healthcare plan during the fall campaign, get up to 55+ Senate votes - which I think will be easy with Edwards at the top of the ticket - have the Presidential election called for Edwards early in the evening, and I think passing universal healthcare in calendar 2009 is close to a lock.

I'm not sure what you're smoking Petey, but I'd like some.

Posted by Jake | January 24, 2008 11:00 PM

Nick Kaufman:
I knew that Feingold was going to back Obama a while ago. Like Petey, I really admire Feingold, but even he isn't perfect. I wonder what Feingold would have said about RFK back in 1968. The difference between RFK in 1960 and 1968 was somewhat like Edwards between his Senate career and now.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 24, 2008 11:03 PM

zavulon:
So what happens when John Paul Stevens crokes in 2010? While Hillary might not be a great choice, she is better than any Republican. Do you want another Supreme like Alito or Scalia?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 24, 2008 11:09 PM

What makes you think, Conscience of Joe Klein, that Hillary will nominate a more progressive justice than Alito? Where is the evidence for Hillary being progressive in any significant way? And my point remains valid: we don't need another devil's bargain with two crooks. We need to make the Democratic party genuinely progressive, and we can't do that while we keep making compromises and choosing the least bad alternative so we only get half screwed rather than totally screwed. The longterm matters more. Anyway, how can you be sure that Stevens won't last until 2020, rather than "croking"? (nb croak is not croke).

Posted by zavulon | January 24, 2008 11:13 PM

The name-calling and slurs against Robert Reich on here are disturbing. What is wrong inside the Clinton camp? Everyone who disagrees with them is personally trashed. I read these posts and it sounds like posts over at humanevents.com or the way Limbaugh talks.
I read what Reich said about Obama and Clinton. It was strong, on point, and without slurs. I listened to the YouTube defense of Obama regarding his stand on choice. No name-calling.
The Clintons are digging a very deep hole, maybe it's a bunker.

Posted by fougasseu | January 24, 2008 11:22 PM

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush in 2004. Hillary's more of a kindred spirit, one thinks.

The whole arrogant, us-against-the-world thing, is the same with Hillary as with Bush. She's a liberal enough, but welfare "reform" and HIllarycare should teach us that Empress Livia only "compromises" when it's to give Republicans policy victories so long as the Clintons can win an election.

Posted by David B. | January 24, 2008 11:59 PM

The democratic party is in a pitiful state.

it's frustrating and foolish.

It's 2008, and the Clintons have deployed a southern strategy. It's disgusting.

has Yglesias criticized the Clintons? not really. he rationalizes their moves. I guess we've learned a bit more about him.

Posted by thehova | January 25, 2008 12:50 AM

"I'll give Matt Ygelsias this - if you want to read his posts, you'd better be prepared to do some work trying to figure out what he's saying."

No, we just ignore him and argue among ourselves.

His posts are usually either wrong or irrelevant to whatever is really going on, anyway.

I still don't know how this guy got hired at the Atlantic based on the sort of crap he's been churning out in the last week or so (month or so? Year?)

Half the posters here could do better - and they'd probably proofread their stuff, too (not me, though, I'm too lazy, like Matt.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 12:53 AM

New Yorkers for Obama! Come out and show your support this Saturday: WALK FOR OBAMA. 11am at 130th and Lenox, Noon at Union Square. Both walking to a 2PM Rally in Columbus Circle.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rc9j

Show the world that New Yorkers want a President with integrity. OBAMA '08!

Posted by Obama08 | January 25, 2008 12:55 AM

zauvulon, your comment on tom in ma's post has a brilliant idea for setting Right Wing political dominance in cement for a generation. I've been watching the purge-and-purify wing of our party lose us elections for 40 years now. They're not political adolescents, but political fetuses. One more reason to keep Roe v Wade.

Let's start realizing that elections are about winning power and governing. Waiting for the Revolution doesn't work in this country.

Posted by fred g | January 25, 2008 2:21 AM

Bill Clinton and his pathetic, power-desperate wife are both pieces of shit.

Posted by AnotherLifeLongDem | January 25, 2008 8:06 AM

@fred g

No, you are exactly wrong. It is people like you, who compromise with dishonesty, perversion, falsehood, the politics of fear - yes, normal, weak, cowardly people - who enable corrupt Republican-lite scum like the Clintons. It is people like you who lose us elections, when you allow these political shysters to take over our party purely for their own ambitions. We don't need them, and we can't afford to reward their greed and selfishness. You can stay with the Clintons of this world if you like - but remember the tainted White House they produced last time. I used to call myself a Democrat, but since watching the Clinton slime-machine in action I am an Independent and proud of it. We need something new and better in this country, and the Clintons will never give it to us.

Posted by luissuiza | January 25, 2008 8:36 AM

"One thing's for sure. If Hillary does win this thing, there's going to be a long and bloody purge.

While Reich has been on the outs with the Clintons for some time, you do have to admire the courage of many of Obama's other endorsers. These are people who know how to read the polls."

Posted by southpaw

No, president Clinton wouldn't be able to purge worth a sh*t, unless she wanted to be lame duck by '10. The GOP will stage a 90's retro party, using the same tactics as before - deny legitimacy, block *everything*. I mean *everything*. Remember that the 1993 budget passed by Gore's tie-breaking vote, with 0% of the GOP sentators voting for it.

If Clinton f*cks with Democrats, she'll find that she loses critical support, of which she has none to spare, and the GOP will look at her compromises and say 'F*ck you very much'.

Now, I half expect her to do so, and to go down as a one-term failure.

Posted by Barry | January 25, 2008 9:15 AM

The more the Clintons are critized by the likes of the above crazies, the more I admire them.

Posted by Jennifer | January 24, 2008 7:32 PM

Jennifer is a disgusting monster who makes me want to vomit. Clinton voted for the war and Jennifer the Warmonger admires her. This is disgusting and I feel sick.

Posted by Barbar | January 25, 2008 9:58 AM

No matter what you think of Bill Clinton, there is absolutely no way that not voting, or voting for a Republican in 2008 is a progressive act.

**********

I'm not just rationalizing here: I see no appreciable difference whatsoever between a John McCain presidency (assuming a Dem-led Congress) and a Hillary Clinton presidency, other than McCain's vastly superior experience and Clinton's hillbilly psychodrama baggage.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 25, 2008 10:08 AM

Supreme Court justices, abortion rights.

Posted by Barbar | January 25, 2008 10:15 AM

Petey:

"In short: run loudly and proudly on out of the Beltway mainstream ideas, win big, and you can pull Washington to the ideas you ran on."

As an Obamabot I agree with this, but the fact is he lost Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada... Obama has a chance to win and he is more liberal (she's running on Bill Clinton's presidency) and a better candidate than Hillary.

One of the reasons European countries are more social democratic is ethnic homogeneity. America's exceptionalism is due to race.

The head of the Pew research firm said that he felt the polls got New Hampshire so wrong is because they didn't poll representatively and undercounted poor white folks in the sticks, who ended up going for Hillary, b/c of race. Iowa demonstrated, though, that Obama can win.

A black man as President would be largely symbolic, yes, but I think it would do a lot more than Hillary or Edwards supporters are aware. But also maybe they are aware but don't believe Obama can win. But he won Iowa, and the Republicans are a mess, McCain is having "senior moments" that don't instill confidence.

Posted by Peter K. | January 25, 2008 12:00 PM

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10kohut.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Peter K. you are making a conclusion that Pew did not.

Posted by wrong | January 25, 2008 2:30 PM

The issue the pollster didn't address is that the polls didn't predict Obama having such a big win in Iowa. He says nothing about that.

And that win is giving Obama a boost in South Carolina. How big we've yet to see.

Posted by Peter K. | January 25, 2008 5:16 PM

Is anyone posting here over the age of 18? Sheesh.

Posted by Jim Olson | January 25, 2008 11:46 PM

I've been anti-Clinton since I was 12 years old, and as a pretty staunchly Republican guy, I suppose I've heard just about every Clinton attack there is. But my favorite, by far, have been from the left. Especially Hitchens in the late 90s. Pure gold. These past few weeks have been a lot of fun.

That said, they've also been terribly disheartening at the thought that the Clinton smear-machine can still effectively beguile the average Democrat voter. I was getting comfortable with the thought of an Obama presidency, but now that might come at the price of damn corporation-bashing ambulance chaser as Attorney General. Now THAT is an example of how the Clintons corrupt everything they touch.

Posted by chuck | January 26, 2008 11:12 AM