Statements

One:

“Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign. He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation’s great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Two:

Statement by Matt McKenna, Director of Communications, Office of President Clinton, on President Clinton's Discussion with Senator Barack Obama:

President Clinton had a very good conversation with Senator Obama today. He renewed his offer to do whatever he can to ensure Senator Obama is our next President.

President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come. The President believes that Senator Obama has been a great inspiration for millions of people around the country, and he knows that he will bring the change America needs as our next President.

Let the parsing begin!

Comments

How do you parse something that isn't there?

I'm hoping the media will keep muttering about whether Wm. Clinton *really* supports Obama for another four weeks or so, until *BAM*! Unity Day II: Unite Harder.

Posted by Gabriel | June 30, 2008 4:00 PM

Obama considers the conversation "terrific", whereas Bill Clinton considers it merely "very good"? ZOMG! DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY!

Posted by phil | June 30, 2008 4:12 PM

Ever notice that the so called respectable media loves to play up every story in a very tabloid type fashion?

The media cannot be trusted in America now; that's the sad truth. The media allowed this administration to deceive us into a dumb war, and they are still making the same mistakes.

The media doesn't care about us or what the real issues are; they are only interested in creating a soap opera style of melodrama.

A democracy functions on people getting the best information possible with which to make decisions. Perhaps nothing would be better for this country than a true reform of the media.

Also, let's recognize the truth: the media has been warped because for years now the far right has been better at screaming and whining and yelling. The media has responded to them out of cowardice. Time to balance things out; scream and yell and make your views known as loudly as possible; that's the only way the media understand.

Posted by cm | June 30, 2008 4:18 PM

Gabriel is right, this stuff is un-parse-able.

It's funny how we all miss the drama of Obama v Clintons. Obama v McCain is so boring compared.

Bill Clinton is what he is, which is a personally flawed former president without many historic accomplishments and a record of selling out his own party to benefit his own acquisition of power.

Obama is the New Hope.

The one who vanquished the Clinton machine on his way to taking back the country from the Bush machine.

Mostly, Bill Clinton liked being the most admired, most watched, and most powerful guy in the room. He loves the attention. He was the president who played his sax on Arsenio.

But now he has been eclipsed.

He'll never get over it. And as we speak, is likely plotting STILL to get Hillary in the White House during the most slam dunk democratic year since 1976. We'll be hearing more about how Hillary wants her name put into nomination at the convention. Fanatics will cry feminist victory. But behind it all will be Wild Bill, plotting a coup where he once again takes control of the country, but this time with his wife as his beard.

Posted by Later Hater | June 30, 2008 4:20 PM

When two people have a "conversation" and one thinks it was "terrific" but the other thinks it was was only "very good," there's trouble ahead. Especially when the less enthusiastic one has a reputation for having lots of "conversations" with lots of different people.

Posted by old guy | June 30, 2008 4:48 PM

Ah, the aroma of a big butt kiss is in the air - or this that just bullshit being spread on the farm. My bet is that Bill got a his demand for an ass-kiss, but it wasn't sincere enough, so the convo was very good, not excellent or terrific.

The Comeback Kid hasn't hauled down the flag, yet. Denver awaits!

Posted by JimPortlandOR | June 30, 2008 4:50 PM

Yawn. More boilerplate press releases. Wake me when there's actual news.

Posted by LFC | June 30, 2008 4:56 PM

What's to parse? As Krugman argues in his Times column today, a President Obama is likely to be a lot like President Clinton--moderate, centrist, mostly content with the status quo--and that Obamabots who have fallen for this "change, change, change" rhetoric are deluding themselves.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 5:05 PM

answers.com definition of "terrific":

1. Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player

I see a conspiracy not to repeat each other!

Posted by Andruw | June 30, 2008 5:09 PM

Moderation and centrism would represent a change from the status quo.

Posted by Gabriel | June 30, 2008 5:10 PM

...mostly content with the status quo...

Mixner, what part of the current status quo do you consider to be "moderate" and "centrist"? Iraq? Torture? Tossing habeas out the window? Ignoring the Constitution? Historically large spending increases? Incompetence in helping American's struck by natural disaster?

THAT is the current status quo. Going back towards where we were in the 1990s would be a massive change from where America is today.

Posted by LFC | June 30, 2008 5:10 PM

Mixner, what part of the current status quo do you consider to be "moderate" and "centrist"? Iraq? Torture?

Yes and yes. When did Obama say he was going to have all of our troops--all of our troops--out of Iraq?

Tossing habeas out the window? Ignoring the Constitution? Historically large spending increases? Incompetence in helping American's struck by natural disaster?

I don't consider your first three items to be remotely accurate descriptions of the status quo. The last is presumably a reference to New Orleans and hurricane Katrina. The incompetence in dealing with that emergency extends to all levels of government, both parties, and past administrations as well as the current one.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 5:22 PM

When did Obama say he was going to have all of our troops--all of our troops--out of Iraq?

I believe 16 months, but the simple fact that he understands we can't keep 130,000 troops in Iraq for the next four years puts him MUCH closer to the center than Bush or McCain, neither of whom have any real plan for any type of troop reduction whatsoever. Just more "stay the course". As far as I'm concerned a timeline for "all" isn't important as long as we're moving in the proper direction. When McCain said 100 years, he meant it, and he's simply incapable of fathoming that the situations in Germany and S. Korea aren't remotely similar to Iraq.

The incompetence in dealing with that emergency extends to all levels of government, both parties, and past administrations as well as the current one.

Uh, oh. I catch a whiff of the "they're all bad" defense, always a sign of desperation. Go take some time to look up the improvements made to FEMA under Clinton, and the subsequent reversal of those improvements by Bush. You won't like what you find out.

Posted by LFC | June 30, 2008 5:31 PM

"...As Krugman argues in his Times column today, a President Obama is likely to be a lot like President Clinton--moderate, centrist, mostly content with the status quo--and that Obamabots who have fallen for this "change, change, change" rhetoric are deluding themselves."

Sad, but ever so true. It amazes me how many people think, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, that yet another shuffling of the republicratic furniture in D.C. will solve much of anything.

I'll vote for Obama because if he's 1% better than Bush it's still worth it. People who expect much more are just begging for disappointment.

Posted by kafka | June 30, 2008 5:38 PM

When did Obama say he was going to have all of our troops--all of our troops--out of Iraq?

Here.

Posted by scythia | June 30, 2008 5:39 PM

I believe 16 months, but the simple fact that he understands we can't keep 130,000 troops in Iraq for the next four years puts him MUCH closer to the center than Bush or McCain, neither of whom have any real plan for any type of troop reduction whatsoever.

No, Obama said only that he would remove "combat brigades" within 16 months, not all troops. And even that doesn't seem to be a very firm committment. As many pundits have observed, if military advisors argue that a rapid withdrawal would imperil the large security and political gains that have been made over the past year or so, Obama might find it very difficult to keep to his proposed schedule.

When McCain said 100 years, he meant it, and he's simply incapable of fathoming that the situations in Germany and S. Korea aren't remotely similar to Iraq.

I am skeptical of your mind-reading abilities. I also think that Iraq is not merely "remotely" similar to Germany and South Korea, but similar in important respects relevant to the viability of a long-term U.S. military presence.

Uh, oh. I catch a whiff of the "they're all bad" defense, always a sign of desperation.

No, a sign of realism. If previous administrations had not been so neglectful of the hurricane threat to New Orleans and the need to fortify its coastal defenses, the scope of the disaster probably wouldn't have been nearly as large.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 5:46 PM

scythia,

You're wrong. Read the statement you linked to again. More carefully this time.

You might also want to check out Obama's more detailed description of his plans for Iraq on his campaign website.

Even Matthew concedes that Obama's true intentions on Iraq are unclear.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 5:52 PM

As an aside, Krugman continues his Petey-esque (I still think they might be the same person) priority of pre-election rhetoric over election results as the explanation for Reagan's transformational success vis-a-vis Clinton. You think the guy who won over 50% of the popular vote and 90% of the electors might have a bit more impact than the guy who won 43% of the popular vote and 68% of the electors in a 3-man race? If only Clinton had more radical rhetoric, he would've ridden his 43% popular vote win into the preogressive utopian sunset! Sheesh.

Here's a prediction: if Obama wins the pop vote by 9% and the electoral college by 440, we can expect some big changes to the status quo come January.

Posted by Led | June 30, 2008 5:59 PM

LFC,

By the way, do you consider Obama's support for President Bush's proposal to give legal immunity to telecoms companies that are being sued for helping government officials conduct wiretaps without a warrant to be consistent with your claim that a President Obama would not "ignore the Constitution?"

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 6:02 PM

looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come.

In the months to come? MONTHS to come?? Why not YEARS to come??? A-ha! The Clintons are already obviously deep in planning their 2012 primary challenge to President Obama's reelection!!!!1!!11!!!!onehundredeleven!!!!

Posted by Another Chris | June 30, 2008 6:02 PM

Led,

If the fundamental reason Reagan was successful at transforming the country and Clinton wasn't is that Reagan's ideas were just fundamentally more popular than Clinton's--rather than because Clinton himself didn't really believe his own rhetoric of change--that doesn't reflect well on the prospects for a transformational Obama presidency. But I think Krugman's right and you're wrong and that the evidence suggests that Obama isn't really seeking transformation anyway.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 6:14 PM

What do you mean by "fundamentally" more popular? What was more popular 28 years ago or even 16 years ago isn't particularly relevant to current public opinion. We're as far away from the 1992 election as Reagan in 1980 was from the Great Society. Things change.

Posted by Led | June 30, 2008 6:27 PM

What do you mean by "fundamentally" more popular?

More popular by virtue of reflecting enduring political values and beliefs, rather than just sympathies for a particular candidate in a particular election.

What was more popular 28 years ago or even 16 years ago isn't particularly relevant to current public opinion.

Then why is the fact that Reagan's margin of victory was higher than Clinton's margin in an election 12 years later particularly relevant to Krugman's analysis? You seemed to be suggesting that Clinton wanted to transform the country, like Reagan had before him, but couldn't because he just didn't have enough support. If that's true, it suggests that Obama is unlikely to be successful at transforming the country, either, even if he wants to. But, like Krugman, I don't think either Clinton or Obama really wants to, their (very similar) rhetoric of change notwithstanding. Obama looks more and more like a rerun of Clinton.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 6:47 PM

I think Obama will be a lot like Clinton and be a pretty centrist president. I think he will keep a cleaner nose than bill did and I think because of his rhetoric and the fact that the contrast between him and the awful W. Bush will be more favorable than the contrast between Clinton and the mediocre but unlucky H.W. Bush will allow him to be successful in ways Clinton wasn't.

This is a bad thing. Change is incremental, after Clinton most people wanted more of the same and that would have been good, but Bush lied about being a moderate and the media savage Gore based on fabrications and trivia and we moved powerfully in the wrong direction.

I think just one dem term will get us mostly back to Clinton pragmatism with hopefully some successful universal healthcare even if it isn't totally universal. The next dem term can maybe push things a little bit further.

Obama isn't so much more progressive than Hillary Clinton (though I would say if he was much more progressive he would have a much smaller shot of winning) I think because of his gifts as a politician based on what Americans want he is as progressive as a president can be and still hope to get elected. Not that the most 'progressive' agenda is necessarily the best.

Bush was a disaster but I think it is not obvious that we as a country should move so far to the left of Bill Clinton.

Posted by Michael Foody | June 30, 2008 6:58 PM

You seemed to be suggesting that Clinton wanted to transform the country, like Reagan had before him, but couldn't because he just didn't have enough support. If that's true, it suggests that Obama is unlikely to be successful at transforming the country, either, even if he wants to.

This is a non-sequitur. Goldwater's campaign was disastrous, but Reagan was successful. Public opinion changes over time. But at any given time, a president can only make major changes to the status quo if he is elected with a powerful wind at his back. Reagan had that. Clinton didn't. Assuming he wins, Obama's ability to deliver on his health care plan and make major changes in energy policy, for example, will depend on how much he wins by and the makeup of the Congress.

Posted by Led | June 30, 2008 7:11 PM

I'd say health care is about the only issue on which Obama seems to have a proposal that might remotely qualify as transformational. And even that plan is much less ambitious than Clinton's was, and Obama seems much less enthused about it. Obama's "energy policy" is mainly just more government R&D spending. In contrast, Reagan challenged fundamental ideas about the proper nature and role of government, and that legacy has influenced every policy area.

If Obama is transformational at all, it will probably be in the symbolic way Andrew Sullivan has described, in terms of the public face of America in the world, not in terms of substantive policy change.

Posted by Mixner | June 30, 2008 7:31 PM

As an aside, Krugman continues his Petey-esque (I still think they might be the same person) priority of pre-election rhetoric over election results as the explanation for Reagan's transformational success vis-a-vis Clinton. You think the guy who won over 50% of the popular vote and 90% of the electors might have a bit more impact than the guy who won 43% of the popular vote and 68% of the electors in a 3-man race? If only Clinton had more radical rhetoric, he would've ridden his 43% popular vote win into the preogressive utopian sunset! Sheesh.

They might be the same person - they make the same arguments - but Krugman cranks out columns, teaches and blogs a lot. Pretty impressive work ethic, even if his negativity pisses me off.

The Republican brand is trashed. You have Colin Powell saying nice things about Obama. There's a lot of potential for Obama, and people in Congress and in the states, plus concerned citizens to do some good. I never expected much from Clinton, but the conditions are there for Obama to accomplish some things, or at least set the stage by changing the debate, even if he is campaigning cautiously. (I'd be cautious too if I were a black dude running for President).

Posted by Peter K. | June 30, 2008 8:49 PM

Mixner: "I am skeptical of your mind-reading abilities."

I'm skeptical of your mind.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 30, 2008 9:22 PM

Remember Our Bill had his cardiac bypass in Sept 04. There is a not-generally-known side effect of open-heart surgery. When one is 'on the table' the surgical team sticks large-large IV needle type things into the aorta and channels the blood flow to a machine that briefly does the job of the heart and the lungs. That is, this 'perfusion' machine pumps blood against a membrane that mixes oxygen with it and allows CO2 to leave and then fairly forcefully pushes it through the body.

One of the consequences of this is that a large percentage of folks who have bypass surgery have some neurological effects. Depression is very common. Forgetfulness and difficulty concentrating also. Changes in emotional character are frequent. It seems possible that there are hundreds of tiny little 'micro-strokes' that occur.

Maybe we could cut him just a bit of slack? Not that anything said here is false--Bill's always been a problem boy in his own way. But still...

But what can I say--I'm a nurse.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 1, 2008 12:12 AM

Obama did everything possible to pillory Bill Clinton as a "racist" for no better reason than that Clinton mentioned Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary. Now Obama wants to make Clinton a small asset for his campaign...

It's just another flavor of the usual self-serving blather from Obama, and none of it means anything.

Posted by Jacob Freeze | July 1, 2008 12:42 AM

Obama did everything possible to pillory Bill Clinton as a "racist" for no better reason than that Clinton mentioned Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary. Now Obama wants to make Clinton a small asset for his campaign...

It's just another flavor of the usual self-serving blather from Obama, and none of it means anything.

Posted by Jacob Freeze | July 1, 2008 12:46 AM

The biggest change will be the gender of the intern that President Obama diddles.

Posted by Abercrombie catalog interns | July 1, 2008 1:02 AM

The biggest change will be the gender of the intern that President Obama diddles.

Posted by Abercrombie catalog interns | July 1, 2008 1:02 AM

Thank God someone finally realizes that Obama is not only gay but recklessly has sex with random homeless crackheads like me!

Thank God someone finally listened to my credible, very credible story!

Posted by Larry Sinclair | July 1, 2008 5:37 AM