Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Dems 2008: Obama’s real damage to the Clintons

Bill Clinton’s attempt to paint Sen. Barack Obama as the “establishment” candidate in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, as opposed to his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton — and the reaction to it — reveals the lasting damage Obama has already done to the Clintons. 

The race/gender battle being waged by the campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination may amuse or horrify the American public, but there is a general sense that the rift is temporary.  Should Hillary win the nomination, Obama will likely say and do all (or most) of the things expected to boost party unity.   Those who supported NotClinton in the nominating process are likely hold their noses and vote for a Clinton-led ticket to save the nation from the continuation of the Dark Ages.

Nevertheless, a particular type of damage has been done, even if Hillary Clinton is elected.

The reaction to Bill Clinton’s latest tack among folks on the left side of the aisle has been fairly consistent.  Take a look at some representative comments on this story at the HuffPo:

“There is nothing he will not say or do at this point. I voted for him twice but am flabbergasted at his lack of statesmanship. He is just a political hack at this point.”

***

“Has any former president stooped so low after leaving office? He appears so desperate to extend of revive his legacy, that he seems blind to how much he’s sullying it.”

***

“Bill Clinton- I did not have sex with that woman- I didn’t inhale- White water- He’s know role model for my child and it’s not because he white!!!”

***

“come on Bill… you wildin’ now…. LOL…. that is a real laugh out loud moment for me.”

At Comments From Left Field, Kyle E. Moore’s piece is entitled “And He’s Got Some Choice Real Estate On A Swamp He Wants To Sell You, Too.”  At the Daily Kos, a diarist cuts to the chase in a post titled, “Bill Clinton is Batsh*t Crazy,” with a number of comments like those from the HuffPo.

This reaction — like the reaction to Bill Clinton’s attempt to claim on WVON that he just heard Clinton surrogate Robert Johnson’s allusion to Obama’s past drug use for the first time and that we should take Johnson at his word in claiming he was refering to Obama’s community organizing — is one of incredulity.

During the Clinton era of the 1990s, the Left (including its members in the media) was willing to overlook the Clintons’ often ridiculous bits of spin, on matters both small and large.  Indeed, when the punditocracy deigned to take notice, it was often to marvel at the Clintons’ audacity and applaud it.

It increasingly appears that those days are over.  Hillary Clinton always lacked the charisma to pull off Bill brand of über-spin.  Bill’s efforts as a surrogate have stripped away his once-industrial-strength layer of Teflon. 

Now that it is being applied against a charismatic black Democrat, Clintonian über-spin — a key element of Clintonian politics — is becoming an object of mockery, even among a substantial segment of the Left.  Obama will not be able to entirely undo that damage, even as part of a potential Clinton/Obama ticket.

Update:  Slate has posted a video mashing-up clips of Hillary Clinton with clips of Tracy Flick from the movie Election.  Mockery may not derail the Clintons, but it is a lingering wound that may forever weaken them.

Update x2:  In the comments, JD suggests that I may be giving the Left too much credit.  In response, I submit an example, albeit not involving mockery, of the dynamic I am suggesting.  

After Watergate, the “criminalization of policy differences” became a tactic Democrats used against the Reagan Administration.  It was later picked up by Rep. Newt Gingrich as a weapon against Speaker Jim Wright, and more broadly against the Clinton Adinistration under the GOP Congress.  (Left and Right may debate the merits of individual cases, which is not germaine to my point here.)   The culmination was Clinton’s impeachment, along with counter-charges lodged against Gingrich, Rep. Bob Livingston, the late Henry Hyde, etc. 

After Bill Clinton left office, the Independent Counsel law was allowed to lapse on a bipartisan basis, and the tactic has largely died out.  A special counsel was appointed to investigate the Plame Game, but this is an exception proving the rule.  Former Rep. Tom DeLay may be another, though this was the work of a partisan prosecutor at the state level.  The national party probably enjoyed it, but there is little to suggest they initiated it.  The Mark Foley Page scandal-ette largely played out at the ballot box, not in televised hearings or courtrooms.

To be sure, the Left has hurled just about every accusation imaginable at the Bush Administration.  Yet the calls to address them with independent investigations and impeachment have been largely confined to the fringe of the Democratic Party — which is fairly remarkable, given the level of vitriol for the administration.  I would argue that, having suffered through this mode of politics, the more responsible Democrats could no longer fully commit to its continuation.  I would argue a similar dynamic may arise now with respect to the Clintons’ über-spin.

56 Replies to “Dems 2008: Obama’s real damage to the Clintons”

  1. McGehee, GOD says:

    HuffPo Commenter:

    He is just a political hack at this point.

    Welcome to 1991, dumbass.

  2. B Moe says:

    Welcome to 1991, dumbass.

    Exactly. I have been trying to explain to my moonbat friends that just because they can finally see it doesn’t make it new.

  3. Darth Vader says:

    I love it when De Rev-o-lution starts to eat it’s young.

    Mhehe.

  4. Karl says:

    While there is a certain amount of schadenfreude to be had, I would urge folks to be sympathetic to their disillusioned friends. That ol’ chestnut about files, honey and vinegar, etc. Their resentment should remain directed at the Clintons, not someone rubbing it in.

  5. happyfeet says:

    Hoochiemama never ever should have gone on record though about the willing suspension of disbelief, least not so that it was recorded on tape. The campaign commercial writes itself really.

  6. B Moe says:

    Commenter at the DKos link:

    “I know this is a horrible, horrible line…but it totally seems appropriate at times like this: “Hillary didn’t know what was going on under the oval office desk…how are we supposed to believe she had an active part in the white house in the 90s?”

    Heh.

  7. SGT Ted says:

    Hillary floating the idea that Obama is the establishment candidate was a real dumb move.

  8. happyfeet says:

    Obama is an opportunist though cause it’s important to remember that mostly in his life he was black at a time when there weren’t any really cool establishment Democratic black people in office and also he made a convention speech that the media slobbered all over. It would be like me doing a particularly jazzy powerpoint and then thanking our CEO for his services like thanks but you can go now except different cause I’m really pale.

  9. McGehee, GOD says:

    Karl, realistically, they’re all going to vote for her in November anyway, if she’s the nominee. They’ll hate themselves for it (especially when she loses), but they’ll put out. They always do.

  10. McGehee, GOD says:

    Whoops. I left out an excerpt. Guess y’all can figure out what I was responding to, though. Sorry.

  11. Marty says:

    Karl,

    Did you mean “flies and honey” or “files” as in 900 FBI files in the White House basement in 1993?

  12. Peng Dehuai says:

    Comrade, who fouls oneself, usually not have much following over long run.

  13. happyfeet says:

    My favorite Clinton spin was the one about how the soldiers would be home by Christmas from Bosnia or whatever without mentioning that they were just rotating more troops in. Sometimes I think the Clintons think we’re Canadian.

  14. kelly says:

    “the Left (including its members in the media)”

    Ahem.

  15. Karl says:

    Karl, realistically, they’re all going to vote for her in November anyway, if she’s the nominee. They’ll hate themselves for it (especially when she loses), but they’ll put out. They always do.

    Perhaps, as far as voting goes. I suggested as much in the post:

    Those who supported NotClinton in the nominating process are likely hold their noses and vote for a Clinton-led ticket to save the nation from the continuation of the Dark Ages.

    My point is that, even if HRC wins the nomination (likely), and even if she wins a general election (less likely), one of the key elements of the Clinton’s “permanent campaign” style of governance has been seriously diminished. Once a large segment of the base has gone so far as to mock and insult this sort of thing, a line has been crossed psychologically. These people will never be able to wholly commit to this kind of uber-spin in the future.

  16. Karl says:

    Marty,

    Typo, not Freudian… but how would I know?

  17. Karl says:

    kelly,

    If specifying the media seems redundant, I did so because it was generally in the media where one tended to see pundits enthusing over uber-spin, even as they admitted that was what it was.

  18. Ken says:

    I wouldn’t mind seeing a Clinton/Obama ticket (in any combination) as I don’t think they would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected in the general. The hardcore left would vote for them but mainstreet America certainly won’t.

  19. kelly says:

    Coulnd’t agree more, Karl. I remember all the “pundits enthusing” over Clinton’s uber-spin very well. Hell, I marvelled at it. That’s what makes watching the uber-spin fall flat so much fun.

    BTW, I’m enjoying your posts a lot. Throw in some arcane literary allusions, a smidgeon of intentionalism, and some subtle sexual references and you’d have yourself a blog. ( I keed!)

  20. JD says:

    These people will never be able to wholly commit to this kind of uber-spin in the future.

    Karl – Don’t sell them short.

  21. Karl says:

    I’m out of intentionalism at the moment, But I have updated the post with more mockery.

  22. Karl says:

    And thanks, kelly, for the kind words.

  23. Karl says:

    JD,

    Key word = “wholly.”

  24. Big Bang (pumping you up.) says:

    “…even if HRC wins the nomination (likely)…”

    – Which brings us to the real point of this “event”. Her of the brass balls, and her campii erectus cabal, thought they could simply put the upstart uppity blackey in his place with a quick race card punch. The “calling it a truce” has effectively removed that arrow from the Clinton knights that say “swallow” political quiver. Thats a big loss for the Hilldebeast.

    – Obama can now go forth and wax lyrically to his hearts content without fear of reprisal. Thats another notch in his gun belt, and tilts the playing field that much more for him.

    – But an even worse transperant move on her part is the dibacle in Navada over the Casino mess. Listening to the delegate comments last night, you could see the growing rift in the Dem gaggle. Obama is one of theirs, so he knows all the dirty tricks. Its likely his advisers will make sure the bullying from the Clintonesta’s going on in the dispute is widely talked about. Another sour note was sounded when a hispanic delgate blurted, “[if] you think the hispanic vote is going for anyone but Hillery you’re nuts”. We all know why that should be the case, but once again such a endorsement from the illegal world would, in itself, be enough to kill her chances in the general.

    – Ok I admit it. I’m thouroughly enjoying this “goes around, comes around” moment.

  25. N. O'Brain says:

    “Bill Clinton’s attempt to paint Sen. Barack Obama as the “establishment” candidate in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination,….”

    This from an ex-President of the United States of America.

    My irony meter is turning at warp speed.

  26. kelly says:

    Am I the only one getting the feeling that real underlying reason for any allegiance to Hillary! is simply the unrequited pining for a third term (and possibly fourth) for Bill? I mean, it’s understood that hard-core feminists might want her in office just to poke The Patriarchytm in the eye, but really, how big is that constituency? Certainly not enough to get her nominated to say nothing of elected.

  27. kelly says:

    Further, are people that stupid to believe that just because their equity investment portfolios/401ks grew at roughly 18% per year while Clinton happened to be in office that he was somehow responsible? How, exactly? Was he personally inflating the dot com bubble? Manipulating the S&P? Throwing money at VCs? Expanding PC connectibility?

    And what, exactly did he accomplish for liberals? Gays in the military? What else?

    I’ll never understand why this guy is so adored by the left.

  28. McGehee says:

    Key word = “wholly.”

    No, I think JD’s right. They’ll come up with a way to drink the Kool-Aid with cheers.

  29. McGehee says:

    I’ll never understand why this guy is so adored by the left.

    Before him, their last guy was Jimmy Carter.

    Do the math. ;-)

  30. happyfeet says:

    They see Bill Clinton as having been persecuted. They all want so bad to be that guy is what I think makes them love him so much. Do me next is what they want but mostly they just have to settle for the vicarious thrill.

  31. Brian, NYC says:

    Anyone who thinks Obama isn’t an establishment candidate is fooling himself. They are all establishment candidates… but does no one wonder why the media doesn’t report anything critical of Obama at all, when there is just as much to report as any of the other candidates? He has closet republicans like Oprah Winfrey behind him… she has more power than people already perceive, and she’s using it vigorously. Bill Clinton’s statement was NOT racist, and had nothing to do with race. It had to do with the inconsistency between Obama’s voting record and his public statements. He’s boring, petulant, and inexperienced. It’s obnoxious how he claims to be the agent of change when he has done NOTHING to create legislative change. Does that NOT matter to anyone?? Come on, America, use your brains!!! Stop being lazy… this isn’t American Idol.

  32. SGT Ted says:

    Do me next is what they want but mostly they just have to settle for the vicarious thrill.

    That seemed to be how the pro-Clinton feminists viewed BJ Clintons marital affairs.

  33. Brian, NYC says:

    and as for those pining for Hillary… I think that those who support her are doing so DESPITE Bill Clinton. He should recede into the background and stop trying to subconsciously botch up his wife’s campaign. It would destroy him if she won and were a BETTER, more active president. People in the Senate and House actually LIKE her, they don’t like Bill. They don’t respect him. McCain has said so in public statements. He talked about how both sides respect her and her work ethic, and how she is responsible in “all ways, unlike her husband.”

  34. happyfeet says:

    What they could do is get divorced then. As in I don’t love you anymore. I haven’t loved you for a long time and this isn’t working. I can’t live a lie anymore. You’re not the person I married.

    See then there’d really be no question about the whole deal. I think short of that “receding” is sort of wishful thinking.

  35. happyfeet says:

    Ooh. I hate how you make me feel. That’s a really good one.

  36. JD says:

    closet republicans like Oprah Winfrey behind him

    Dude, warn me before you start spewing teh krazy like that.

    People in the Senate and House actually LIKE her

    Yup, especially Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, and Obama, all of whom are working their asses off to make sure she doesn’t get the nomination. I can’t imagine that having an almost 10% negative rating with your fellow Dem Senators is a good indicator.

    You loonwaffles need to start off each of your comments with a disclaimer, or just a simple ************** so we know what is coming.

  37. JD says:

    Karl – You are right, maybe not 100% committment, but I simply do not see that percentage falling that much for them. With the exception of Hillary, this is likely to be less about their candidate and more about the winner not being an R.

  38. McGehee says:

    McCain has said so in public statements.

    And if John McCain (R-Media) said it in public, it’s gospel.

  39. happyfeet says:

    I dunno. Bloomie is lurking in the next stall. If Hillary or Obama really pisses off one or the other’s fanboys, I can see them tapping their foot in his direction.

  40. JD says:

    Brian, NYC – You really must warn us before you post that kind of stuff. I had pho come out of my nose, and quite frankly, it was not very pleasant.

  41. Karl says:

    Perhaps I have still managed to be unclear. The dyanamic I am describing is not directed at the election. Dems will pull the “D” lever. I am discussing the degree to which uber-spin will be taken seriously during the campaign and after the election (regardless of the outcome of the election, really).

  42. happyfeet says:

    I think the uber-spin will always be with you cause it’s now part of the landscape independent of the candidates. It’s like how that moron made that comment today about how NPR had asserted that Republican healthcare plans were far more “radical” is the word they used than the Democrats’. Also, the “collapsing economy.” For real I think the media’s uber-spin has displaced spin originating from the campaigns in this cycle to where the campaign spin is much more narrow-targeted.

  43. happyfeet says:

    That’s not exactly an argument for real though cause I’m not thinking in complete sentences today.

  44. JD says:

    Karl – Would that were true, it would be a nice and refreshing change. I suspect that once it is not being used on fellow travelers, it will become completely acceptable again.

  45. TomB says:

    I think that those who support her are doing so DESPITE Bill Clinton. He should recede into the background and stop trying to subconsciously botch up his wife’s campaign. It would destroy him if she won and were a BETTER, more active president. People in the Senate and House actually LIKE her, they don’t like Bill.

    I am REALLY digging the RANDOM capitalization.

    I think you WOULD be a lot more PERSUASIVE if you USED more EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!one!!!!!!e!even!!!

  46. JD says:

    eleventy!!!!!!!!!11!!!!one!!!!

    ALL CAPS MEANS THAT I AM REALLY EXCITED AND THAT I REALLY MEAN WITH LOTS OF PASSION WHATEVER DRIVEL IS SPEWING FORTH FROM MY FINGERS

    !!!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!1one!

  47. happyfeet says:

    Bill’s efforts as a surrogate have stripped away his once-industrial-strength layer of Teflon.

    I think my point is that there’s no reason the media’s efforts as a surrogate doesn’t put them in the same boat. This is CNN.

  48. SGT Ted says:

    CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!!!!!11!1!

  49. JD says:

    I just love Moby’s …

    Obama is very bright and had the notion that Politics is a game that has been played by the same players over and over gain, that we the people are getting played. He is right! The fact he is new is his asset!
    Anyone who votes for th status quo is a sucker!
    I at this point would take Edwards or Obama over any other!

    And I was a Republican till now.

    I know truth when I hear it, and i wont let my disdain for Pelosi or Reid or Clinton or any other established Dem or Republican sway me away from the truth.
    We must bring in the new!
    Obama is soooo new!

  50. PCachu says:

    So, until now, was that a “staunch” Republican, or a “lifelong” Republican?

    And remember, in MSM parlance, both terms mean “never pulled the ‘R’ lever in my life”.

  51. Andrew says:

    Obama is…um…

    man, I’m tired, all of a sudden.

  52. Mikey NTH says:

    “For real I think the media’s uber-spin has displaced spin originating from the campaigns in this cycle to where the campaign spin is much more narrow-targeted.”

    That would terrify me if I were running a campaign or a political party, having the MSM out there giving me all of the help they can give me and not listening when I say ‘cool it down’!

    It’s hard enough trying to keep your own staffers on message and gaffe-free, I would think, but with a bunch of journalism grads running around saying “We’re from CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/NPR/NYT/WAPO, etc. and we’ll help you! Watch us go! Hey want to see something new? Here it is! Hey, that guy bothering you? We’ll take him down! Wasn’t that clever? Anything else we can do for you? We’ll find something to do, and you should get some rest – that horrified stare doesn’t televise well.”

    I can just see that happening.

  53. […] seems like it was just yesterday that I was suggesting: Now that it is being applied against a charismatic black […]

  54. […] to Newsweek, Truman was not kind to Kennedy, but it has been a while.  As noted here a few days ago: During the Clinton era of the 1990s, the Left (including its members in the […]

  55. […] previously hypothesized, Clinton Disillusionment Syndrome might not prevent Sen. Hillary Clinton from being […]

  56. […] Clinton camp is employing against Barack Obama.  (Another instance of blowback from Clintonian über-spin.) However, as noted this morning, Hillary Clinton’s best chance of winning the nomination […]

Comments are closed.