Taking Our Toys and Going Home

Reading Bill Clinton's slams on Barack Obama you have to wonder if the ex-president and other close associates might be so clouded by bitterness if Hillary Clinton loses that they'll try to sabotage Obama's general election campaign. As Hillary's husband, you expect Bill to vigorously support her campaign. But as a former president and high-profile Democratic Party leader, you also expect Bill to not actually get down and dirty attacking other Democrats as unfit for office.

After all, if Obama does become the nominee and John McCain or Mitt Romney starts attacking him as insufficiently experienced to do the job, one surrogate you'd definitely want to have out there in Obama's camp would be former President Bill Clinton.

Comments

Like Al Smith opposing FDR in 1936.

Posted by N CA Dem | January 8, 2008 12:23 PM

I suspect that Bill Clinton is more invested in protecting his position within the Democratic Party than he is in securing the White House for the Democrats themselves.

Posted by Christmas | January 8, 2008 12:28 PM

Dunno, but it worries me enough that I wouldn't support HRC for Majority leader (I used to think it would be a better fit for her), because she might not be willing to help a President who beat her for the nomination succeed. That's pretty depressing.

Posted by latts | January 8, 2008 12:29 PM

What happened to "fall in love, then fall in line"?

I think the Clinton legacy is going to take a huge hit, and not just with Hillary losing.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM

He'll get over it. Clinton's got one heck of a temper, and he's trying his best to win this one.

Is he really going to try to get in good with Republicans and cut ties with the Democrats? Can't see it.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Very ugly, and very, very disappointing from a Democratic leader that most of us like a great deal. I've waited in lines to see him in the past! If WJC continues to try to demonize Obama, he's the one that will be buried in this party. I'm really disgusted with him at this moment.

Posted by cms | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM

He's still griping about Ken Starr. This pair is living in the past, which is why they just don't get the present.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 8, 2008 12:31 PM

"I suspect that Bill Clinton is more invested in protecting his position within the Democratic Party than he is in securing the White House for the Democrats themselves.

Posted by Christmas | January 8, 2008 12:28 PM"

Right now he's the only Democrat who won two terms on his own (Truman and LBJ both first came into office when their predecessors died) since WWII. The Democrats elect someone else, he goes from being the most powerful man in the party to being just one of many elder statesmen. He'll just be happy to carry more clout than Carter.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 12:32 PM

Mrsaturdaypants, I don't think anyone's actually expecting Bill to support the Republican or actively oppose Obama, but there are degrees of support. And he's already building up a stock of Obama-bashing clips that the Republican candidate will be happy to use in his ads.

Posted by KCinDC | January 8, 2008 12:33 PM

Once again the facts elude Matt. What Bill said is exactly 100% true and needs to be said.

Obama, will not stand a chance in the general election. He is a flip flopper who once, when it didn't matter, opposed the war, then in the Senate he supported it. He is a flip flopper who said before he was elected that he would vote against the Patriot Act then once in the Senate he voted to re-authorize it.

Obama is a great speaker but that is pretty much about it. He has a thin resume and he has never been adequately examined by the voters.

Matt, it is not hard to be objective but it does take a willingness to actually look at the world as it actually is instead of how right wing reporters tell you it is.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 12:36 PM

What is Clinton referring to when he says Obama said there was no difference between him and Bush on the war in 2004? Does anyone have a link to Obama saying that?

Posted by curious | January 8, 2008 12:39 PM

No, lol, actually I would expect him to attack Obama until the nominee is selected. Why wouldn't he?

Posted by Susan | January 8, 2008 12:43 PM

Bill is parsing statements made by Obama during the 2004 campaign in an attempt to shore up support for Kerry among antiwar voters -- you know, trying to ensure that the Democratic nominee wins the election? Something the Clintons should keep in mind.

Posted by KCinDC | January 8, 2008 12:43 PM

It's pretty nonsensical on the face of it. Just what does Clinton want the press to "vet" Obama for that he hasn't been vetted on already?

Patriot Act slam-debunked
Present votes-debunked
Energy bill-who cares?
Iraq spending-total egg-on-face argument
Experience-already done*yawn*
Statement on AUMF-out of context, debunked
McClurkin-over and done
Madrassa-debunked
Cocaine-nobody gives a crap
Lack of Substance-read the damn website

Bill is just pissed because they are going against the Teflon candidate: Little to attack him with, everything they do attack him with bounces off him and sometimes smacks the one who threw it. It's not magic. Obama is simply a better politician and campaigner than the Clintons and is beating them fair and square.

Posted by Abe | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM

Bill has always placed himself above the Democratic party [see '94 election], his actions/words in 2K undermined Gore.

Obama appears to have the same personality/MO minus the zipper problem.

Both men are impatient ambitious and given to self flattery...I'm not sure if Bill's support of Hillary has done her any good and I'm pretty sure Obama has the same read.

It's hard for me to work up any empathy for either man. Particularly grating to me, Obama's supporters sound and act like the "young Republicans for Change"...circa 2000]

Posted by S Brennan | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM

Huh, it sounds like you might be suggesting that Bill Clinton would possibly consider doing something contrary to the interests of the Democratic Party as a whole for the purpose of accomplishing his own political goals.

Hmmm. That would almost be like passing some giant Republican-initiated trade treaty by pulling together the already-united Republicans and a minority of Democrats by hammering away at progressives and liberals and labor unions as wrong-headed and backwards.

Bill Clinton would never do something like that, the Clintons and their DLC allies never did anything which would put their political or ideological interests above that of the party as a whole.

You must have been thinking wrong, or of someone else.

Posted by El Cid | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM

Hillary supporters attacking Obama's votes on Iraq? Wow. That is some strong kool-aid.

Posted by jim | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM

I see. So now, four days after the Iowa caucuses - just after actual votes in the 2008 election cycle have started to be counted - we're projecting ahead 10 months to the Clintons sabotaging the Democrats chance of winning the White House.

This is, er, absurd.

What both Bill and Hillary are complaining about is the promulgation of an instantaneous conventional wisdom leading to a coronation.

Grant the Clintons, and Obama, and Edwards, and god bless him, Bill Richardson this - they care about seeing Democrats (or progressives, if you want to call them that) elected and effecting better policies (if nothing else, note Hillary Clinton's graceful and positive remarks immediately after the Iowa defeat). They disagree about who'd be most effective about doing it, and they disagree - at the margin - about how precisely these policies should be constructed. But to jump from there to speculating on post-nomination sabotage - feh.

Posted by Andrew | January 8, 2008 12:46 PM

1) Matthew , in a common mistake of youth, keeps making the mistake of thinking that politicans make decisions.

Politicans don't -- their financial backers do.

2) And Hillary's Billionaire patron Haim Saban is a long damm way from packing up his tent and going home -- I explained why last night at the tail end of an earlier thread:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/three_ways.php#comment-1092542

3) Obama is about to be hit with something out of Deuteronomy.

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 12:47 PM

Geez, I'm not up on my Clinton history, but is there any real reason to think that the Clintons would sabotage Obama? I guess you could say that Clinton had a complicated roll (or lack thereof) in Al Gore's campaign, but a good part of that came from Gore's side. The stuff Clinton is saying is a bit raw, yes, but it's not out of bounds -- it's true that the media hates HRC and treats her attacks on Obama very differently than his attacks on her. I feel like this sort of prognostication (or speculation, or whatever) is uncalled for.

Posted by mary | January 8, 2008 12:50 PM

I concur with El Cid, the damage done to the Democratic party and the nation by Bill's "making nice with Republicans" is incalcuable.

So when I here Obama singing the "making nice with Republicans" tune....

Posted by S Brennan | January 8, 2008 12:52 PM

I find myself somewhat in disbelief that so many media types are surprised that Bill Clinton would do everything within his power to stand-up for and help his wife.

Why do you people continue to imply that Bill would or should do anything less that what any other loving husband would do?

I would be more surprised if Bill weren't attacking Barack. Barack has built his entire campaign message around the idea that Hillary Clinton and Clintonism are obselete. It's more than fair that Bill defend Hillary, and accordingly, the legacy of his administration.

It's also fairly absurd to think that the Clintons are going to go all Nader on us if they lose the nomination. It's a primary, people, they have a right to fight - even vigorously - to win.

Posted by dry_fish | January 8, 2008 12:54 PM

The Clintons have no loyalty but to themselves and to preserving the legacy of the Clinton Administration by installing the wife for a rerun in order to redeem them from the stain that they left behind the previous time.

The bitterness they express now comes from being hit with the reality that their dream of a restoration will be blown away by a young upstart, coming from "nowhere" (check the historical irony), who is proving far superior in his skills of political mobilization and his positive message than anything that the vaunted Clinton machine can mount.

Posted by Justin X | January 8, 2008 12:56 PM

"But as a former president and high-profile Democratic Party leader, you also expect Bill to not actually get down and dirty attacking other Democrats as unfit for office."

Umm, unless they actually are, you know, unfit for office.

Posted by sbj | January 8, 2008 12:56 PM

I dunno. i think this is good for Obama. I'd like to see as much criticism as possible in the primaries so that we're sure he can handle it in the GE. There definitely is a press halo over him at the moment, and the criticism could do him and his supporters some good by forcing them to address now what will be thrown at him later.

Posted by omgwut | January 8, 2008 12:56 PM

So when I here Obama singing the "making nice with Republicans" tune....

Obama's "making nice with Republicans" is different. It's about saying nice things and making them feel that he's listened to them, not about embracing their policies. There's also a large distinction between Republican voters and Republican politicians.

Posted by KCinDC | January 8, 2008 1:02 PM

After reading the article Matt linked, I don't see where he's getting his worries about Bill Clinton sabotaging an Obama general election campaign from. Bill's comments are just a bunch of sour grapes and weak attack lines expressed out of frustration that his wife's campaign is not going as expected. I'm not seeing whatever Matt was reading between the lines that indicates Bill and Hillary want to help Rudy McRomneybee beat Obama in the fall.

Posted by Ron | January 8, 2008 1:04 PM

If people believed any of Bill's bullshit, Hillary would have won in Iowa instead of getting her ass pwned.

Posted by Scrape | January 8, 2008 1:06 PM

dry_fish: "It's also fairly absurd to think that the Clintons are going to go all Nader on us if they lose the nomination. It's a primary, people, they have a right to fight - even vigorously - to win."

Indeed. Sometimes I think the Obama people have never witnessed a political campaign before, or are just so enamored and immature that they cannot abide anyone saying anything except "Obama Rulz!"

The idea that this race has been particularly nasty is so absurd it's hard to even know how to respond.

Bill Clinton has probably raised (times 10) more money for Democratic candidates accross the country than any human alive, but because he dares try to save his wife's sinking campaign, he is now an infidel that will plotting to defeat the Democratic nominee for president.

God I can't wait til this is over....

Posted by Andruw | January 8, 2008 1:10 PM

I agree that Obama is all sizzle and no steak - I don't see that as an obstacle to him being elected. Do you think the Republicans are going to counter with somebody charismatic?

Posted by FuzzyFace | January 8, 2008 1:12 PM

ken says, "What Bill said is exactly 100% true and needs to be said. Obama, will not stand a chance in the general election."

I disagree. I know too many Republicans who say they are planning to vote for him regardless of who the Repub nominee is. This is no joke. There is something unique and historical about the man. I think he will win in a blowout not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

Posted by Ohio23 | January 8, 2008 1:13 PM

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but, hasn't standard policy always been:

rivals for the nomination attack each other savagely until one wins,
then the unsuccessful rivals rally behind the winner they'd been calling inexperienced and unqualified and a danger to the very fabric of democracy who has suddenly turned into an experienced, eminently qualified statesman and the only one who can save the world from the awful candidate from the other party. I mean, isn't that how the game is played? How is Clinton deviating (or threatening to deviate) from this dance?

Now if Obama get's the nomination I imagine the Clinton's will officially support him (they probably just won't wear themselves out campaigning for him and I can't think of any reason they should).

Posted by michael farris | January 8, 2008 1:14 PM

I think the Clinton legacy is going to take a huge hit, and not just with Hillary losing.

Naw. He'll still be the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

Posted by sglover | January 8, 2008 1:15 PM

one surrogate you'd definitely want to have out there in Obama's camp would be former President Bill Clinton.

No, you don't. As Bill Clinton himself said again and again, elections are about the future. This is the fundamental reason why HRC is tanking. People just don't want to go backwards. And frankly, if Obama is perceived of as separate and independent of the Clintons, I think this helps him in the general election.

Posted by Philly | January 8, 2008 1:15 PM

This potential had occurred to me a few days ago. I don't think the Clinton's could take their toys and go home-- just too crazy-- they have to endorse the Democratic nominee. But what about their legions of staffers and supporters? My eyes and ears on the Hill suggests that the Clinton team hates Obama. Would the low to mid level staffers, the New Democrat coalition, the top flight consultants, and others stay in the Democratic camp? Or flee to John McCain or Michael Bloomberg? Can we force Hillary to go on record that the Clintons will severly punish defections from the Party?

Posted by gfw | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM

"Bill Clinton has probably raised (times 10) more money for Democratic candidates accross the country than any human alive, but because he dares try to save his wife's sinking campaign, he is now an infidel that will plotting to defeat the Democratic nominee for president."

You can argue that Bill Clinton was good for America...but he was a disaster for the Democratic Party. Before Clinton, the Dems still had enough muscle to force Bush the Elder to abandon his no-new-taxes pledge. Then Clinton is elected, validates almost everything Conservatives have been saying for 40 years by declaring "The era of Big Government is over", spent almost his time between 1994 and 1998 triangulating away from the Democratic Party, then forced the entire party to whore itself out to protect him from his own weaknesses or else "the Big, Bad Republicans will win".

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 8, 2008 1:20 PM

Like others, I can't say I'm surprised. Hillary really wants to win and Bill's first loyalty is to his wife, not his party. He wouldn't be the man who won two elections if it wasn't for that emotional streak in him.

Is attacking inexperience worse than attacking from the right?

----------

Specially for Abe: When is someone going to ask Obama about the fact that he's chosen 3 economic advisors who want to privatize Social Security?

Posted by Meh | January 8, 2008 1:20 PM

He is a flip flopper who once, when it didn't matter, opposed the war, then in the Senate he supported it.

Not true. But even if it were true, better that than someone who supported the war when it did matter.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 8, 2008 1:28 PM

remarkably the Clinton half of the Bill Clinton-George H.W.Bush tag team has managed to be non-partisan for most of the Bush presidency only to revert to an ultra-partisan (ala Al From, Marshall Wittman, Wil Marshall, the DLC) IN the Democratic Party. Sister Souljah redux.

Posted by della Rovere | January 8, 2008 1:28 PM

1) I think it was deeply dishonest of Bill Clinton to suggest that Hillary's vote on the IRaq resolution was not a vote allowing George Bush to invade.

2) Maybe the guy who ,under oath, argued what "is" is -- and that oral sex is not sex , can convince us that we didn't really invade Iraq in 2002. That we haven't really been in a war. After all, how do you define "war"?

3) Then --after arguing that ,at worse, Hillary was conned and fooled by an obvious moron like George W Bush, Bill can go on and convince us that we need to make someone with such "experience" and expertise President.

That way, having been conned and rolled by George W, Hillary can waste another 3800 lives and another $1 Trillion being conned and rolled by other leaders of the world.

Provided, of course, that Haim Saban and the other billionaires of the Israel Lobby approve of her being conned and rolled. Provided that it is "good for Israel".

4) The man's a lying shithead who gave us 8 years of George Bush.

This is the legacy we want to preserve for another 8 years? Goddamm it , NO!

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 1:32 PM

The idea that the only Democrat to actually win the White House on his own AND get re-elected in the past 63 years was a "disaster" for the Democratic Party is breathtaking.

Bill Clinton's successful presidency is largely what made Democrats even competitive in presidential politics again.

Posted by Andruw | January 8, 2008 1:34 PM

This from, yes I know, Chris Matthews:

"Chris Matthews appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe on the morning of the New Hampshire primary to describe how he expects the Democratic Party establishment to destroy Barack Obama's candidacy and ensure the nomination for Hillary Clinton.

"There's a battle in the Democratic Party between the idealists and the interest groups," Matthews began. "And in the beginning of every Democratic campaign for president, there's an idealist who comes forward ... and they do very well in the first offing. ... And then the interest groups get all called in, the meal tickets, all the people that get something out of the party are bussed in, trucked in from out of town ... and they blow away the idealist.""

Posted by della Rovere | January 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Last I checked, this was the primary season.

Is the idea now that the Iowa caucus is winner-take-all? If so, I didn't get the memo.

And can we stop with the leader meme? We're electing a candidate for President, not choosing a leader. I retain some "hope" for the restoration of Constitutional government, and so I'd really like to keep using names of offices, rather than airplane-reading and Villageous concepts like "leader." Goes for Clinton, Obama, anybody. It's a toxic meme that progressives should be very careful about using.

Posted by lambert strether | January 8, 2008 1:35 PM

> He's still griping about Ken Starr

And well he should. Ken Starr went on to become a lawyer for Blackwater, for example.

The dots connect together over time. Trust me on this, there are some Republicans you can't want even in the dining room, let alone "at the table."

Posted by lambert strether | January 8, 2008 1:39 PM

is there any real reason to think that the Clintons would sabotage Obama?

C'mon, who ever needed evidence to assume the worst of a Clinton? Why look for evidence when we can "wonder" and "suspect"?

Posted by Ryan | January 8, 2008 1:40 PM

When is someone going to ask Obama about the fact that he's chosen 3 economic advisors who want to privatize Social Security?

When is someone actually going to support this crap? I google "Austan Goolsbee social security" and I discover that a Kerry consultant (Goolsbee) in 2004 argued that under Bush's plan, Wall Street firms would make a trillion dollars at the expense of senior citizens. WTF?

Posted by Barbar | January 8, 2008 1:42 PM

Umm, unless they actually are, you know, unfit for office.

It is obvious to any real human with half a brain that obama isn't "unfit" for office.

Posted by libarbarian | January 8, 2008 1:46 PM

Meh,

Not only does Jeffrey Liebman support privatizing social security, but David Cutler, Obama's top advisor on Health Care, thinks health care cost inflation is not a problem. And Austan Goolsbee, Obama's top guy on economics, says that subprime mortgages are great.

Posted by Peter H | January 8, 2008 1:54 PM

And Hillary is going to keep Gitmo open, continue torture, and keep spying on us.

But at least she wont be nice to Republicans.

Posted by libarbarian | January 8, 2008 2:07 PM

Exactly.

My actual disagreements with Bill Clinton during the period of his office were entirely generated from my own fevered imagination, as were any conclusions I made or political projects I desired, being as I am one of the unhinged extreme liberal fringe moonbats who simply imagined that the Democrats shortly after triangulation began in earnest lost Congress for most of 1994 - 2006 in some way which must entirely be the fault of people like me or some other abstract factors which no one can explain and are no one's fault, certainly not the fault of any of the major Democratic political leaders of the period, because they were not fringe crazy people, unless they were.

Anyway, for me to look at things from my own point of view and not the first person perspective of some powerful political figure is obviously wrong and I'll try to get in step and correct that.

Posted by El Cid | January 8, 2008 2:15 PM

It's the iron law of institutions!

Posted by mike | January 8, 2008 2:32 PM

I have to agree with the commenter regarding Hillary. It's clear, despite his personal events, that Bill worships the ground Hillary walks on. It's sweet, but it also means that if her chance is gone, he'll get over it and get behind the nominee.

Posted by Punditus Maximus | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM

Needs Repeating,

Specially for Abe: When is someone going to ask Obama about the fact that he's chosen 3 economic advisors who want to privatize Social Security?

Posted by Meh | January 8, 2008 1:20 PM

Posted by S Brennan | January 8, 2008 2:55 PM

I think it's entirely possible that Bill may be so petty as to deliberately try to spike Obama's general election campaign so Hillary can run again in 2012. If there's one thing we learned conclusively from L'Affaire Lewinsky, it's that personal considerations usually trump the well-being of the nation where Bill is concerned.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 8, 2008 3:22 PM

Umm, unless they actually are, you know, unfit for office.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression that this discussion was about the Clintons going negative on Kucinich?

Posted by Adam Villani | January 8, 2008 3:42 PM

"The idea that the only Democrat to actually win the White House on his own AND get re-elected in the past 63 years was a "disaster" for the Democratic Party is breathtaking.

Bill Clinton's successful presidency is largely what made Democrats even competitive in presidential politics again."

What happened to the Democratic majority in Congress (especially the Dems two-generation rule of the U.S. House) after Bill Clinton's election? What happened to Democratic Party control of governorships and state legislatures?

Bill Clinton ripped the heart out of the Democratic Party and put himself in its place. Now he sees someone else getting ready to replace him and he doesn't like it one bit, because it's never been about anything except Bill Clinton. Even when he does good, it's more about HIM doing the good than the good getting done.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 8, 2008 3:48 PM

When has the Big Dog ever put party ahead of himself?

/bitterness

Posted by MNPundit | January 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Bears repeating: when has Obama ever said he supports privatizing social security? Oh yeah, never. He actually repudiated the idea on his interview with Charlie Rose ~1 year ago.

When has Obama suggested health care costs are an issue? If anything, his plan was the most aggressive of the 3 from the leading Dems in addressing cost issues.

And what, exactly, is the problem with Obama's plan for the sub-prime issue? Instead of citing the view of 1 of his advisers, why don't you read his f**king plan and tell me what you think is wrong with it

Did you know that some of Bush's advisers were against the Iraq War?!? *gasp*

Did you know that presidential advisers are not some monolithic bloc that think and act in unison?

Get real.

Posted by Michael | January 8, 2008 4:11 PM

The biggest loser -- it's now clear he erred by not entering -- is clearly Al Gore.

Posted by apetra | January 8, 2008 6:26 PM

"When is someone going to ask Obama about the fact that he's chosen 3 economic advisors who want to privatize Social Security?"

When will you acknowledge that Obama has explicitly ruled out privatization as a solution to maintain social Security's long-term solvency?

If you honestly think Obama is going to recommend privatization during his tenure as president, you're smoking crack.

Posted by brewmn | January 8, 2008 7:01 PM

By the time Obama gets nominated, Bill Clinton - at this rate - will have undermined his own credibility so completely that no Democrat will want him within a mile of O's campaign. Bill is really going to go down with her ship to the bottom of the deep blue sea. As well as sending it there faster. This is not me gloating, it's me looking on in fascinated horror.

Posted by Phoebe | January 8, 2008 8:31 PM

Obama is against privatizing social security because he said so on Charlie Rose. (Just like Obama was against funding the war because he said so regardless of his subsequent votes to fund the war)

So why the talk about Social Security in crisis, why put together an economic team that is filled with those who favor privatization, why didn't he "clarify" his views after the crisis flap?

My guess is that Obama will support some type of individual investment accounts in exchange for votes on his healthcare package. He will make deals with Republicans to get his agenda through Congress.

Posted by driver8 | January 8, 2008 8:40 PM

"What both Bill and Hillary are complaining about is the promulgation of an instantaneous conventional wisdom leading to a coronation."

Uh, is that anything like being the "inevitable" nominee based on having the Clinton name?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 10:17 PM