Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiShame on Him
One might think a man who struggled with the definition of "is" and wagged his finger while lying on national television would not be in a position to accuse others of "fairy tales."
But humility and statesmanship are nowhere to be found in the Bill Clinton who attacked Sen. Barack Obama in underhanded and unseemly ways.
The last straw was Clinton's attempt to marginalize Obama's South Carolina victory on Saturday night by pointedly noting that another African American candidate, Jesse Jackson, won there in 1984 and 1988. Funny, when a reporter had asked about the racial dynamics of politics in the state days earlier, a sanctimonious Clinton had snapped, "Shame on you!"
There are signs the former president's attack-dog act may be backfiring. It appears to have helped sway Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., to come off the sidelines to bestow his coveted endorsement on Obama.
Sen. Hillary Clinton admitted her husband may have gotten "a little carried away," blaming sleep deprivation and his commitment "to me and my campaign."
But Bill Clinton's excesses went well beyond one little slip of the tongue. His shots at Obama were sustained, and they were unfair.
He described Obama's characterization of consistent opposition to the war in Iraq as the "biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." He twisted Obama's very accurate characterization of the way Republican ideas dominated the national agenda into suggesting "since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas." Clinton not only distorted Obama's words, the former president conveniently overlooked the fact that, as a candidate in 1992, he had been at least as effusive in his praise of the Reagan legacy.
Bill Clinton also charged - without offering evidence - that Obama had commissioned a "hit job" on him.
Yes, the heretofore soft-focus memories of the Clinton years are coming back in sharper relief for many Americans. Many Democrats could forgive the Clintons' ruthlessness when it was aimed at Ken Starr or Newt Gingrich. Now it's a fellow Democrat in the way of their path back to power.
Most likely, Clinton will dial back his venom out of strategic necessity. But the damage has been done to his stature as an elder statesman. Questions have been raised about what role he might play in a Hillary Clinton administration.
"Buy one, get one free" was a Clinton campaign line of 1992.
It doesn't sound like such a bargain in 2008.
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
13 Comments so far
Show AllThe idea of Bill Clinton lecturing Barack Obama on any subject makes me want to choke. Obama could say (but won't) that he still has his law license. Clinton surrendered his Arkansas license for five years and remains a disbarred attorney, banned from practicing before the Supreme Court of the United States because he lied under oath. Obama might say (but won't) that he, like Clinton, enjoys being adored by beautiful women, but he hasn't made a practice of seducing them. Not on the job, and not off the job either. He might say (but won't) that his wife wouldn't tolerate such conduct on his part and would never be so corrupt as to facilitate his infidelities in exchange for a promise of political power. He might point out that history already judges Bill Clinton, Democrat, as less progressive than Richard Nixon, Republican. He might say that Bill Clinton will be distinguished always and forever as an impeached president and is today an embarassment to his party, if not a millstone around the neck of every Democrat. Clinton needs to get out of the way, and somebody should tell him that. Somebody should tell her that.
Government fairy tales? Noooooooo.....
Smells like James Carville to me!
When I saw this article title, I supposed that the SF Chronicle had written a good editorial excoriating Bush for his disgusting "State of the Union" exercise in no-holds-barred lying last night. I thought to myself, "The Chron isn't usually that brave. I wonder what's got into them."
Then I see that it's just about Clinton. Well, OK, at one level, that's all right. Clinton is certainly disgusting -- both of them. (However, it's giving the Clintons way too much credit to claim, as the article does, that "Many Democrats could forgive the Clintons' ruthlessness when it was aimed at Ken Starr or Newt Gingrich." I don't remember Clinton getting in any successful ruthless shots at all at Gingrich or Starr -- or even trying. I would say Gingrich & Starr beat the crap out the Clintons, & the Clintons took it, because like all Democrats, they don't have the guts to stand up to Republicans.)
For me, though, the main thing about this article is that the Chronicle stood up to the small liar -- Bill Clinton -- while letting the more powerful liar escape scot-free. As usual.
PS - Obama's idea of "standing up to Republicans" is making kissy-kiss noises about Reagan. If he's the nominee, it's going to be painful, watching McCain take him apart in November. It's likely that the Dems have already lost the November election.
I guess the carpenter-aproned, hammer-swinging, election-overseeing, Peace-not-Apartheid-writing talents of former Democratic presidents may need a few decades to emerge. But at least Bill's hair is equally silvery.
The "progressives" here sound as bad as the "regressives" when speaking of the Clintons. ardee has it right: politics is ugly, and Obama can take it, or walk away. The "fairy tale" comment, as most seem to have forgotten, is Obama's claim that he wouldn't have voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Even Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time.
As my Iowa campaign worker stated "Bill threatened every Iowa labor group in the final days - that he and Hillary will bolt the Dem. party and take all the middle votes with them if she does not get the nomination. " He also threatened the future of any union that did not back Hillary in public.
EDWARDS08!
They are all political whores.
Hoa binh
How can one discuss the foibles of a man seeking to get his wife elected and fail to note the equally objectionable tactics of the man attempting to defeat Senator Clinton. Obama has given as good as he's gotten so far in this race, and to fail to note such is partisanship gone wild.
Is there any doubt about the Clinton's tactics? No. Billary has adopted the strategies of the Rovian GOP. Disgusting. We recognize that if they are using these tactics to get elected, they will continue to push the destructive agenda of the ruling elite once elected too. Shame.
HeatherM, context is everything.
Jesse Jackson did win South Carolina in 1984 and in 1988. That's history, that's legendary. Jackson blazed a trail and then some. Jackson himself said Sunday night the remarks weren't insulting. I think some people just need to see "conflict" to sell papers.