Bill: Obama Has Been Running Against Me
Bill Clinton held a press conference this morning -- yet another sign that he isn't heeding the view of many commentators that he risks damaging Hillary's candidacy -- and during the question and answer session, he came up with a novel response to Obama's claim yesterday that he sometimes thinks he's running against both Clintons.
Bill's reply: It's Obama who has been running against me.
Here's the exchange:
QUESTIONER: “Is Obama running against you, or Hillary Clinton or both of you?”PRESIDENT CLINTON: “Oh, I don’t know, I thought he was running against me for a while there in Nevada when he said that Republicans had most of the new ideas and you had to challenge the conventional wisdom of the ’90s. I thought we challenged the conventional wisdom of the 90s.”
Late Update: I cut the last sentence of this post because it was, well, factually wrong. Apologies.
Comments (50)
Will C. wrote on January 22, 2008 11:11 AM:He held Reagan up in contrast to Nixon and Clinton. Not JFK, unless I am forgetting the interview. But, I for one am happy to see that Obama has responded strong to the Clintons, and this shows that Bill is just interested in more conniving and historical revision.
hello_world wrote on January 22, 2008 11:11 AM:Greg, this is why you get criticized. there is no "in fairness" issue here. Obama made a point that he would attempt to be the transformative candidate that progressive need. Argue with that point if you like, but Bill Clinton took that comment as a personal challenge to his presidency. It's Bill Clinton's enormous ego that was on display at the end of NH and even more so in Nevada. The same ego that got him and the party in so much trouble during his first (yeah, I said first) Presidency. He's more than happy to let his ego run wild given any available opening. Using "in fairness" the way that you do here is simply attempting to turn a blind eye on the actuals fact of the current situation between the Clinton campaign and the Obama one.
Cynic wrote on January 22, 2008 11:13 AM:Obama happens to have been right - Clinton didn't challenge conventional wisdom, he challenged the conventional wisdom of the Democratic Party - and the reason he was so succesful was that the two were hardly the same thing. In fact, you could argue that the entire argument of the DLC was that the Dems had moved out of step with conventional wisdom, and that the party had to be realigned to match the views of the general public. Clintonism, in other words, was all about realigning the party with the electorate.
Contrast that, if you will, with Obama's campaign. In essence, he's attempting to realign the electorate with the Democratic Party. He's doing that in two very different ways. One is by altering dramatically the pool of voters - the surge in young voters changes the balance of power in the electorate, pulling it more in line with Democratic views. The other is by recasting core Democratic issues in non-partisan terms. That's a very different strategy than Clintonism. Obama isn't proposing radical departures in policy, like Bill Clinton did in '92, he's proposing a radical shift in rhetoric.
So much for substance. The point is, Obama still loses this debate. He loses because Bill remains immensely popular with the Democratic base, because there's still deep nostalgia for the 1990s among large portions of the primary electorate, and because he ends up arguing with Bill while Hillary stands apart. It doesn't matter that every single attack launched by Bill Clinton has been a cheap shot. Bill knows something important - when a former president takes a cheap shot, it's a lead story, whether or not it deserves to be. No matter how egregious the distortion, media sources will carry the claim. And just like that, the Clintons can set the course of the conversation.
It makes me want to cry.
WJC's approach is high wire! Repetition; Repetition,.... He fell asleep in a church yesterday! Enough said!
Eric wrote on January 22, 2008 11:14 AM:More odiousness from the fat lizard. Bill Clinton has to be smoking if he thinks they changed anything, conventional wisdom or whatever, in the 90s. We hark back to that era as one of circumstantial prosperity and peace, but also because otherwise we have years and years to page through for a semi-decent Democratic president. But in actuality Clinton was only a mediocre president, above-average perhaps, but unparalleled in smug self-regard.
dajafi wrote on January 22, 2008 11:15 AM:As I wrote elsewhere, it's just too bad he didn't push back against Bush and the Republicans as hard as he has against Obama and Democrats who aren't interested in The Restoration.
We just never get past the consequences of Bill's busting that nut in Monica Lewinksy's mouth: not only did it ruin the last three years of his otherwise-decent presidency, but it's pushed him to lose all sense of restraint, decorum and statesmanship in foisting his Nixonian nightmare of a wife on a party too dumb to know the difference between Clintons. If the party suffers later when the country rejects her polarizing, dishonest and self-serving campaign, and has to suffer through four more years of a Republican nut, so be it--because it's all about the Clintons.
Donal wrote on January 22, 2008 11:16 AM:Probably a good lesson for Obama: don't be too intellectual; don't try for complicated messages because complicated messages are too easy to spin.
Example: "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Example: "I was responsible for the initial legislation that led to the creation of the internet."
anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:18 AM:But Obama did suggest that Reagan challenged "conventional wisdom" in a way Clinton had not. Which, love Reagan or hate him (which I do), he did. I mean, is this even a subject for debate?
Say what you will, the guy transformed our public debate by mainstreaming radical conservatism--he changed conventional wisdom and made government the source of all our woes. There's a reason Clinton proudly proclaimed "the era of big government is over" and that reason is Reagan. Before Reagan, it was inconceivable we'd get rid of welfare. Under Clinton, a Democrat did it.
Heck, the Republican elected before Reagan--Nixon--considered a plan for universal health care! That was inconceivable once Reagan took office.
There's a lot to be said for a guy who can make his ideas palatable to the American people--even if you profoundly disagree with those ideas. Obama is that kind of person, Hillary definitely isn't.
Me Am Bizzaro wrote on January 22, 2008 11:19 AM:Bill inserting himself into the race = "Obama is running against me."
Two weeks worth of foaming at the mouth Bill = "Obama is frustrated."
Do the Clintons say "Hello" when they exit a room?
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 11:20 AM:Yes, Bill, Obama is running against you, because your wife is running on your record. Or the record of both of you. Or her record. Or something. We can't quite tell.
Here's a novel thought that would clarify things for everyone: Why don't you shut the ?#@! up and exit stage right (you should be used to heading that way). You've become a drunken media whore, and are further tarnishing the party you did so much to move to the center, and then so much personally to screw. Let your wife fight her own battles if she is going to be the president. This is sleazy and weak.
VRWC wrote on January 22, 2008 11:25 AM:Can someone please get Bill another mistress so he has something to do with his time? This is almost as embarrassing and damaging as him trying to cram cigars into teenage hoo-ha's.
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 11:26 AM:Please. Bill is too smart not to know that that's absolutely true. Reagan changed the paradigm. Bill worked within the Reagan paradigm. Simple as that.
Before Bill, Democrats floundered and flopped around in a state of total denial, refusing to accept that the FDR paradigm was gone, gone, gone and they lost and lost and lost.
Just as Ike worked within FDR's paradigm, Bill worked within Reagan's. (Who was that president who said "The era of big government is over!" in his SOTU? Was that Bush I? Ronnie? Oh, wait, that's right, it was Bill.)
It's the simple truth. It's historical fact. We can accept it and learn from it and maybe change the paradigm once again.
Or we can act like a bunch of dogmatic Repulicans dumbasses, deny reality, conflate empirical observation with normative praise for our opponents, cling to the past, deny reality some more and either lose yet again or, if we lucky, eke out a slim victory that emboldens our opponents and gives us a mandate to do nothing more than continue to govern within the Reagan paradigm.
Oviously, Bill can't stand the thought of someone doing better than him. The real question is whether the rest of us can.
jd wrote on January 22, 2008 11:27 AM:I stood up for him during his last days in the white house while we all watched the entire party falling apart because I believed that he will back as the leader to help put the party together. I was wrong. He came back as an attackdog, imagine! from the president of US to an attackdog! those you out there can't make up your minds, do not take my words for it, but Sen. Leahy's - he is one of the few men last standing -whenever he says something I trust him without doubt, please.
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 11:28 AM:>>>Probably a good lesson for Obama: don't be too intellectual; don't try for complicated messages because complicated messages are too easy to spin.>>>
Yeah, for that matter, let's all just stop thinking and assume we have to go backwards to meet lowered expectations rather than having the country advance.
The combination of cynical defeatism that is the burgeoning hallmark of the Clinton camp is alarming.
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 11:30 AM:>>>Or we can act like a bunch of dogmatic Repulicans dumbasses, deny reality, conflate empirical observation with normative praise for our opponents, cling to the past, deny reality some more and either lose yet again or, if we lucky, eke out a slim victory that emboldens our opponents and gives us a mandate to do nothing more than continue to govern within the Reagan paradigm.
Oviously, Bill can't stand the thought of someone doing better than him. The real question is whether the rest of us can.>>>>
Sweet Jesus Amen!! That one just got me, how shall I put it....mmmm.....fired up, ready to go!
bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 11:32 AM:The numbers are the numbers. Obama is the future for the democratic party. Clinton is the past.
Ben wrote on January 22, 2008 11:36 AM:Have we become so partisan that we can't agree Reagan was transformative? This is why I can't be a Democrat anymore. I'm independent but at least Republicans invoke names like Truman and Kennedy without the top coming off the room. It is not blasphemous to say Bill Clinton's record as President was disappointing. Do you agree with NAFTA? Were you disappointed in not passing national health care? Was losing control of both chambers of Congress good? And of course there is Monica. Sure there was a good economy and crime went down but it seems to me there are many Democrats--both pro-Clinton and Pro-Obama--who do not want to look at the entire Clinton era. To put it another way, I liked Seinfeld when it was on for 9 seasons that doesn't mean I want Jerry Seinfeld to do a new sitcom.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:38 AM:Let the Akansans go home.
cole wrote on January 22, 2008 11:40 AM:Bill, face it, Obama was right about you. You were a failure as a liberal president, everything you did you did in the context of the Reagan-Bush paradigm. No amount of slander will make your legacy any more than a mediocre continuation of conservative business-as-usual sprinkled with a large quantity of scandals. You are a pathetic little man. Little in the decency sense.
AlwaysTopTheWaitress wrote on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:Bill; Clinton is pathetic, and Isay that with great sorrow. I have found one more reason to support Senator Obama (Keep up the sharp elobows, big guy!).
I cannot stand the thought of that man being in the White House in any capacity.
Clinton’s Big Spousal Shadow
By
On the heels of last night’s Democratic debate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton held a news conference this morning in Washington, D.C.. But all the reporters wanted to talk about was her husband.
His wife is running for something?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/clintons-big-spousal-shadow/
ShutupNvote wrote on January 22, 2008 11:53 AM:
Oh please lets move on this is not an election about Senator Obama only, this is about our country. I could care less that he believes Bill Clinton is being mean to him, what does he think is going to happen in the general when the attack dogs come after him with blood lust, stop whining and playing the Clintons bad poor little Obama crapp its not working, SC may be fooled by this silly theme of the dead divisive racist B and her mean husband are not enamored with me stuff, the country is not pleased.
Senator Clinton showed clear steady firm leadership when attacked, and the Dems need to start talking about the big tent issue what they bring to the table not just about Obama this, this poor Obama stuff may be playing well in Newsweek and MSNBC their rabid anti Clinton cable forum but not out here in Voter Land where we vote and don’t spit.
Bill's big idea of the '90's: school uniforms.
DancingBear wrote on January 22, 2008 11:59 AM:Greg says: "In fairness, Obama set Reagan up in opposition to both Clinton and JFK."
Nope. He set both Reagan and JFK up as transformational in contrast to Nixon and Clinton.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:02 PM:Obama supporters RUSHING to co-sign Raygun's FALSE 'transformative' powers...
That's WHY Obama should have never opened his mouth to PANDER to conservatives.
Sweet.Baby.Jesus.Christ.On.A.Crutch!
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:07 PM:Greg says: "But Obama did suggest that Reagan challenged "conventional wisdom" in a way Clinton had not."
Nope. Obama said Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
The "conventional wisdom" comment was regarding the Republican party in general: "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Please, if you're gonna paraphrase (and use quotation marks), get it right.
Mark wrote on January 22, 2008 12:10 PM:Dancing Bear is right. Greg should correct that statement.
Also, once again Bill is wrong on the substance here, and is simply taking advantage of his standing in the party to peddle falsehoods against Obama. He's effectively served as her V.P in this race, and now that Obama is engaging him, it's Obama who has started this? Right. Oh yeah, and calling B.S on this pair makes us part of the Right Wing Conspiracy. How lovely.
DancingBear wrote on January 22, 2008 12:13 PM:Sorry, Anonymous at 12:07 pm is me.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 22, 2008 12:32 PM:I learned one thing last night: Hillary Clinton will never be the President of the United States.
If she loses the Democratic primary, she won't be in the general; if she wins the Democratic primary, she'll lose in the general.
Here's why: the bitch came back, and I'd missed her. What Americans saw last night was the Hillary they always knew they didn't like. They also saw an Obama stand up to the person they already know they don't like. Two good points for Obama.
The Clinton campaign clearly think they have a winner with the "frustrated" meme; I would note to them that word is EXACTLY the one used by Obama in NH in response to their frenzied, throw-everything-at-him reaction to the Iowa loss. It didn't work out for Obama then, and I suspect that same sense of "I've got this thing won"-ness that the Clinton campaign is displaying by deploying it now will be disputed by the results come Feb. 5.
Finally, Hillary Clinton will never again, not even in NY, enjoy the kind of uniform allegiance of minority voters to her or the party after this campaign. They have said, and they mean it, that minorities exist to vote for them, period; otherwise, they have no gifts to give, no uses. That is a long-term losing strategy. The number of people, myself included, who will vote for Bloomberg in the general should serve as a wakeup call to the Democratic party. It should, but I know it won't.
Ladycheops wrote on January 22, 2008 12:34 PM:Oh waaaaah. Clinton is mean to Obama! He said "rolling the dice" and "fairytale"...he is such an attack dog!
The commentators above must be wusses to be whining about the benign challenges Clinton has made towards Obama. If Obama can't deal with that and without his supporters squealing "Unfair!" at every turn, then he won't cut it during the general.
For Obama to cite Nixon and Clinton in the same sentence as comparables, was extremely disrespectful.
And don't knock Clinton's time in the 1990's. While every Democrat was losing to the republican revolution, Clinton's were winning and keeping the repubicans away from the presidential seat. That is one of the key reasons why republicans hate the Clintons so much; Bush Sr. was supposed to continue republican presidential dominance for another 4 years and hand it off to another republican heir. Bill interrupted that.
Ladycheops wrote on January 22, 2008 12:37 PM:@ Michael's Mom. She's a bitch because why? Oh, she defended herself and challenged Obama. Just like he did. Just like Edwards did. But she's a bitch?
You sound like one of those woman I try to avoid: you cycle down women instead of cycling them up.
Sounds like you just bitchslapped Hillary for your own personal issues. And remember, when you bitchslap someone, the person being slapped is not the bitch.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 22, 2008 12:39 PM:Ladycheops-
For you to now claim that Obama's whining after Bill and Hill whined their way across NH, saying that the media wasn't critical of Obama and I'm just a girl, tearing up at the thought of losing NH, well that's pot meet kettle moment. Clearly, playing the victim has worked for the Clintons since forever. Let's not get confused about whinybabiness, the Clintons wrote the book and its companion dictionary.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 22, 2008 12:48 PM:Ladycheops-
You seem to think I mean bitch negatively. I do not; I, myself, am a bitch of some renown. I don't cycle women up or down (not that I even know what that means).
I, unlike Hillary, have never made a true friend, female or otherwise, that I haven't kept, though. I don't have "personal issues" around which to "bitchslap" anyone, not even Hillary.
I don't like anyone, male or female, who thinks that they are owed the Presidency. I can see through the bullshit feminism she's trying to use now to the bullshit explanation she'll give me tomorrow as the reason my son will have to die for her ego.
No one, alive or dead, gets to give me that explanation without a fight. No one, not even Hillary.
anonymous_coward wrote on January 22, 2008 12:49 PM:Also wanted to call for a correction ... he set Reagan up in opposition to Nixon and Clinton not JFK.
Hank Essay wrote on January 22, 2008 12:50 PM:I actually think Bill is partially correct. Obama's entire campaign has been built on a critique of the Clinton approach to politics and policymaking in the 1990s. In fact, it is the centerpiece of his campaign: stop thinking small, stop triangulation, etc....That is one interpretation of the 1990s but, whatever is, it is surely anti-Clinton. In this way, Obama has been full throttle against the Clintons since he kicked off his campaign...
Why shouldn't the Clintons react?
Hank Essay: He should respond, but shouldn't expect to distort Obama's words and not be called on it. If he wants to defend his tenure at president that's absolutely fair game. When he says Obama claimed Republicans had all the good ideas that was a lie and that's why Obama has challenged him on his truthfulness.
Mark F wrote on January 22, 2008 1:25 PM:I never liked Bill Clinton. Now I like him even less. What a creep he's turning out to be.
Lisa wrote on January 22, 2008 1:37 PM:Bill just can't keep his zipper or his
nasty mouth shut
"Cynic", above, nailed this point. (Put up a Diary on this at DailyKos, please!):
Obama happens to have been right - Clinton didn't challenge conventional wisdom, he challenged the conventional wisdom of the Democratic Party - and the reason he was so succesful was that the two were hardly the same thing. In fact, you could argue that the entire argument of the DLC was that the Dems had moved out of step with conventional wisdom, and that the party had to be realigned to match the views of the general public. Clintonism, in other words, was all about realigning the party with the electorate.Contrast that, if you will, with Obama's campaign. In essence, he's attempting to realign the electorate with the Democratic Party. He's doing that in two very different ways. One is by altering dramatically the pool of voters - the surge in young voters [and independents who'd vote for Obama] changes the balance of power in the electorate, pulling it more in line with Democratic views. The other is by recasting core Democratic issues in non-partisan terms. That's a very different strategy than Clintonism.
What he said.
statusquomustgo wrote on January 22, 2008 1:55 PM:Bill should STFU
he is worthless
DemUnity08 wrote on January 22, 2008 2:33 PM:You know, the conventional wisdom is already convinced that Bill Clinton not only misquoted Obama, but he "lied" about Obama's Reagan comments.
I really don't see it. What I see is a very common effort to repeat back somebody somebody has said, accurately, but by paraphrasing to highlight the elements that are most vulnerable to attack.
Every politician does this sort of thing in virtually every act of challenging an opponent. Think about the debate over whether comprehensive immigration reform constitutes "amnesty" or whether Hillary's support for the Iraq war resolution was a "vote for the war" as opposed to a vote for diplomacy and accountability.
When Obama said that the Republicans had the ideas in the '90s that challenged conventional wisdom, and he simultaneously praised Reagan, it is an altogether reasonable judgment to infer that Obama probably meant something like "good ideas". Reasonable people can think that, at least until Obama clarifies his comments further.
It is no surprise that Clinton haters like Andrew Sullivan are smearing Bill Clinton, but it is striking that the pundits including Josh are all too willing to call the Clintons liars. It does sound like the Obama camp is getting desperate, and frustrated, and they're knocked off their high horse.
I hope they can get back up, because if these few mild and unremarkable efforts at verbal jostling are enough to sink Obama, then the Obama rocket ship has indeed crashed and burned.
brewmn wrote on January 22, 2008 2:51 PM:Hard to believe that these statements are in the same comment:
"Oh waaaaah. Clinton is mean to Obama! He said "rolling the dice" and "fairytale"...he is such an attack dog!"
And...
"For Obama to cite Nixon and Clinton in the same sentence as comparables, was extremely disrespectful."
I guess the only appropriate response to the second quote is...Wait for It...
"Oh waaaaah. Obama is mean to Clinton! Mommy! The black man disrespected me!"
I know I'm biased, but the Hillary side of this fleces flinging is much more logically incoherent, and much more involved with rhetorical games and one upsmanship than the Obama side.
It's pretty clear that, as a whole, Obama supporters are way for intelligent, and way more concerned with the truth of a given statement, than their Hillary-loving counterparts.
DemUnity08 wrote: "What I see is a very common effort to repeat back somebody somebody has said, accurately..."
What Obama said: "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
What Bill said: "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."
What Hillary said: "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years."
How is that an accurate paraphrase? Obama never said Republican ideas were "good" or "better".
Obama said the Republican party in the 90s was the party of ideas. That's his exact quote. This is a right-wing talking point that could have come straight from Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich. They've been saying for years that they were the party of ideas. They didn't have to say they were the party of "good" ideas, that was a given and everyone knew what they were talking about. Last night, when he was called on that comment, Obama tried to parse it by saying "I never said they were the party of good ideas." Well, he didn't have to. It was implied. He got called on an inartful (or possible pandering) statement and then tried to parse it. If Hillary or Bill did the same thing everyone would be jumping all over them for quibbling with what the meaning of "is" is. To construe the meaning of someone's words according to the common understanding of what those words mean is not twisting or lying. Obama should learn to be more careful. This is the big leagues, folks.
DancingBear wrote on January 22, 2008 4:06 PM:Nope, rasher, that's not "his exact quote." You can see that exact quote in my post right above yours. Why say Obama "implied" anything when his actual words say what he meant--"in the sense that they were challenging the conventional wisdom."
rasher wrote on January 22, 2008 4:32 PM:"I think it's fair to say the Republican's were the party of ideas for a very long chunk of time..."
That's the quote as you quoted it. How would you interpret that quote? Favorably or negatively? If I said you were the Dancing Bear of ideas on this thread, would you take that as a compliment or an insult. And if someone interpreted my calling you the Dancing Bear of ideas on this thread as saying you were a Dancing Bear with good ideas, would that somehow be twisting or lying about my opinion of your ideas? Of course not. Any reasonable person would infer that I thought your ideas were pretty good. So for Hillary or Bill or anyone else to claim that Obama was complimentary to the Republican party when he said they were the party of ideas is a logical interpretation of his statement. Why is that so difficult to grasp? He should've simply clarified or retracted the statement instead of parsing it, but instead he tries to turn it around and accuse the Clinton's of lying about what he said. They didn't lie. They correctly interpreted his meaning. Once again-- the party of ideas is a complimentary characterization of the party, especially when contrasted with the "conventional wisdom" of the Democratic party.
DancingBear wrote on January 22, 2008 6:03 PM:Just like Bill, you conveniently omit the second half of the quote, which makes clear what Obama was saying.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:04 PM:Now that Bill Clinton has become an unelectable candidate for president, can we end charade of Mrs. Bill Clinton's "candidacy"?
Is TPM or any other source asking questions about Bill Clinton's campaign budget?
Is Bill paid by the Hillary Campaign?
Are his travel arrangements, advance logistics and travel expenses paid by Hillary for President?
Does Bill repay taxpayers for the cost of Secret Service advance work and entourage travel for campaign trips?
Does the Clinton "Foundation" pay any of Bill's staff, logistics or travel expenses? If so, is that legal? Is the Foundation indirectly channeling funds for Hillary's campaign by supporting Bill?
Taxpayers deserve to know how much it is costing them for Bill to travel the country campaiging for HIS WIFE and AGAINST other candidates.
Diane wrote on January 22, 2008 7:14 PM:What if Bill Clinton held a press conference and noone showed up???
Sort of like a tree in a forest.
Seriously, do you see the other candidates' spouses holding press conferences?? And getting national headlines from them??
Can the Clinton supporters really not see from this why it's so improper for this man to be lying about the other candidates the way he does?
Edward-O wrote on January 22, 2008 7:19 PM:Bill, thank you for interjecting your own form of the truth into this race. Now I remember why, despite being as left as they come, I never voted for you, I withheld my vote from Gore, and why I was personally reviled by Hillary's play to NYC in running for senator in state she never lived in. Now I can vote against Hillary in good conscience.
Man, I DO NOT want another 4-8 years of feeling like I've been handled like a co-ed at a frat party...or an internship. I already feel like I need a shower.
