Slick Willie Rides Again - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-23-2008, 07:07 PM

The author of the article writes for the liberal magazine "The Nation." By all means fellow Democrats, vote Hillary into office. She's the liberal version of Bush. I mean if you want the whole party to get dragged into the toilet behind her, then by all means vote for her and make it happen.

Slick Willie Rides Again

Quote:

Slick Willie Rides Again
William Greider

The Clintons play dirty when they feel threatened. But we knew that, didn't we?

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.

The problem is not Hillary Clinton per se or the sharp exchanges and personal accusations that squeamish political reporters deplore. That's what politics is always about. Tough, even nasty conflict is educational, also entertaining. Politics ain't beanbag, as Mark Shields likes to say.

The one-two style of Clintons, however, is as informative as low-life street fighters. Mr. Bill punches Obama in the kidney and from the rear. When Obama whirls around to strike back, there stands Mrs. Clinton, looking like a prim Sunday School teacher and citing goody-goody lessons she learned from her 135 years in government.

I thought Obama did quite well in response, looked strong and stayed in character. But we shall see. He was compelled to play defense and to hope the audience recognized foul play. It's possible the Clintons won on points, simply by making Obama look like a confused young man who had to keep repeating what he had actually said.

The style is very familiar to official Washington, not just among the Clintons' partisan adversaries, but among their supporters. The man lied to his friends. All the time. They got used to it. They came expect it. I observe a good many old hands among the Senate Democrats are getting behind Obama. It would be good to know more about why they declined to make the more obvious choice of endorsing the power couple.

We are sure to see more of Mr. Bill's intrusions because the former president is pathological about preserving his own place in the spotlight. He can't stand it when he is not the story and, one way or another, he will make himself the story. I used to be sympathetic toward Mrs. Clinton on this point. No longer.

She is using her egocentric husband to do the low-road hits for her campaign. He is good at it--a real charmer if you've never seen his act before. Or is Mrs. Clinton's husband using her? People can ask that question without disturbing the principles of feminism.

Evidently, many of the mainstream party faithful want the Clinton team as their presidential nominee. It's their choice, of course. But does the rest of the country really deserve this?

LessGovMrPrez · 01-23-2008, 07:33 PM

I honestly think that Dems in general dont want the Clintons back. Look at all the big names going with Obama. That is a slap in the face to the Clintons.

The questions Bill has been getting are nowhere near the cupcake stuff they got back in the 90s.

tippecanoe · 01-23-2008, 08:08 PM

Hillary certainly is a polarizing figure. She would in no way unite the country, and as a matter of fact, she could potentially divide it worse than President Bush did.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-24-2008, 12:40 PM

Bill Clinton says race, gender to decide S.C. vote - USATODAY.com

Quote:

Bill Clinton says race, gender to decide S.C. vote

....

Voting for president along racial and gender lines "is understandable, because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time," Bill Clinton told a Charleston audience Wednesday while campaigning for his wife, a role he has played all week.

....

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."

Translation: We cannot beat Obama on the issues, or on character or electability, so we are going to try to turn Obama from an American leader into a black leader. We are going to TURN Obama into Al Sharpton. Once we do that, then we can beat Obama in a straight up fight by cornering the woman vote and using the party's organization to beat him.

Obama won more female voters in Iowa than Hillary did. Clinton is "ghettoizing" Obama.

Caltex · 01-24-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Bill Clinton says race, gender to decide S.C. vote - USATODAY.com

Translation: We cannot beat Obama on the issues, or on character or electability, so we are going to drag Obama into the mud to fight with Bill. We are going to TURN Obama into Al Sharpton. Once we do that, then we can beat Obama in a straight up fight by cornering the woman vote and using the party's organization to beat him.

Obama won more female voters in Iowa than Hillary did. Clinton is "ghettoizing" Obama.

And he's successfully doing it. Once the South Carolina exit polls show a huge racial divide on who people vote for it's over.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-24-2008, 12:48 PM

It's not over until the fat lady sings. You never know how the public will react to the Clinton tag teaming on Obama.

A more interesting question I think is: will the Democratic Party ever be the same if the Democratic candidate had to win by villifying the first real black candidate for President?

Personally, I'm considering voting against the Democrats for a long time to come if Hillary wins.

Fong · 01-24-2008, 12:54 PM

Oh no bias in this thread is there.

I mean, there is just no countering what you are doing, since you are not making any accusations about what she has actually done, you are not saying anything that is disprovable, because it is nothing more then opinion. I can't disprove your opinion, because it is your opinion.

The funniest part is that most of this thread is taken up on the issue that Clinton is using 'dirty' politics, and then every single word in this thread is dripping with 'dirty politics'.

From the very first phrase, 'roughing up' as if Obama is in the school ground being picked on, not a fully fledged candidate for President, its a sorry tale really.

But go ahead, I am sure there will be other threads 'roughing up' other candidates in the same manner as the campaign wears on.

Albinonewt · 01-24-2008, 12:54 PM

Well, in South Carolina it's probably true. Because of the sheer volume of the black vote Hillary can't win no matter what she does.

I think President Clinton makes a lot more of that then he really ought to. That doesn't mean he can't win in "white" states. It doesn't mean he can't carry white voters. But, in this paticular case, the black vote is going to produce a landslide victory for him.

leo · 01-24-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albinonewt

Well, in South Carolina it's probably true. Because of the sheer volume of the black vote Hillary can't win no matter what she does.

I think President Clinton makes a lot more of that then he really ought to. That doesn't mean he can't win in "white" states. It doesn't mean he can't carry white voters. But, in this paticular case, the black vote is going to produce a landslide victory for him.

In Iowa it was something like 95% white people... Obama won w/ a landslide.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 01-24-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fong

Oh no bias in this thread is there.

I mean, there is just no countering what you are doing, since you are not making any accusations about what she has actually done, you are not saying anything that is disprovable, because it is nothing more then opinion. I can't disprove your opinion, because it is your opinion.

Your comments are what's biased here. You find a liberal in the opening post complaining about two other liberals to be "biased"? That makes no sense, but given that the charge is so ridiculous in the first place, it probably wasn't supposed to make sense.

Well it's hard to disprove what I'm saying because it's fact. If you want to try to disprove what I'm saying you could somehow try to make the case that Bill Clinton is not attacking Obama and that Hillary is not pretending to be Mrs. Clean. You could try to make the case that the Clinton campaign is not two-faced, that Hillary is not using surrogates to attack Obama, while she tries to come across off as above the fray. You could try to make the case that the Clintons are not trying to distort who Obama is and that the Clintons are not hypocrites. You cannot do so, because the Clintons are guilty of all the above.

What I am saying is not "disprovable" because it's opinion, but because you cannot disprove facts and the existence of hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fong

The funniest part is that most of this thread is taken up on the issue that Clinton is using 'dirty' politics, and then every single word in this thread is dripping with 'dirty politics'.

From the very first phrase, 'roughing up' as if Obama is in the school ground being picked on, not a fully fledged candidate for President, its a sorry tale really.

But go ahead, I am sure there will be other threads 'roughing up' other candidates in the same manner as the campaign wears on.

What I think is funny about what you say is that there's no substance to it. It's full of insinuation with no logic, proof or evidence. Not even an attempt to justify what you are saying. Just constant accusations of bias without any substance to show why the Clintons are not playing dirty. No attempt to argue why it's OK to play dirty. The "sorry tale" is that you completely ignore the "dirty politics" the Clintons are engaged in and then accuse someone else of bias, which only shows that what you've said is biased.

You have not shown any reason or proof to defend the Clinton's, you've only made baseless accusations of bias as their defense. Since that's no defense at all, it indicates that there is no defense for the Clinton's conduct.