Bill Clinton Rolls: Comeback Kid on a Comedown Tour
Does He Feel He Was Misinterpreted? ‘Of Course I Do,’ He Says
LEWISBURG, PA.—All Bill Clinton wants is for people to focus on the issues.
“I just think I’m for Hillary, and she’d be the best president,” Mr. Clinton told The Observer, after addressing a basketball gym full of Pennsylvanians at Bucknell University. “And I think that anything that doesn’t create a job, that doesn’t solve a problem, doesn’t help us get out of Iraq, doesn’t figure out who would be the best president, is a distraction.”
At what was the first event in a Sunday sweep through the state, Mr. Clinton exhibited all the folksy charm, encyclopedic intelligence, righteous anger and subtle-but-penetrating digs at an opponent—in this case, Barack Obama—that have made him, bar none, the best campaigner of his generation. He has put at his wife’s disposal assets of incalculable value: a razor-sharp strategic mind, decades’ worth of powerful connections and, of course, the most resonant name in Democratic politics.
It’s something of a wonder, then, that it’s actually an open question within the party whether Mr. Clinton has helped or hurt his wife’s campaign, and whether he has done damage to his own legacy. (The answer to the first seems to change depending on the week, or even the day; the answer to the second, at least according to what polls tell us about short-term public opinion, is yes.)
In a brief exchange as Mr. Clinton reached to shake hands with adoring voters along a rope line at the Lewisburg event, he put some of the blame for his drama-filled campaign season on the media, which has isolated and amplified the sorts of loaded remarks that he used to get away with regularly, often to brilliant effect.
Asked whether he thought his remarks had been misinterpreted, he said, “Of course I do. And you know what they are.”
Actually, there is quite a selection to choose from, if we’re talking about things the former president has said that, whatever other motives have been fairly or unfairly ascribed, all seemed precisely designed to get a rise out of Mr. Obama, and a conflict-hungry press corps.
In December he suggested that nominating Mr. Obama would be like “rolling the dice.” In January, he called Mr. Obama’s antiwar narrative “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” He tried to marginalize Mr. Obama’s landslide win in South Carolina later that month by saying, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88,” and he carried on a series of angry running skirmishes with reporters.
This week, he once again kicked off what passes for a controversy by criticizing, in an obviously inaccurate manner, the coverage of his wife’s inaccurate account of a trip to Bosnia. In doing so, he revived the story that has hurt his wife’s campaign and, incredibly, drew a soft public rebuke from Mrs. Clinton herself.
It has been enough to prompt even some of the most loyal Clinton supporters to ask whether Mr. Clinton’s comeback attempt was a bad idea from the beginning.
“Maybe there aren’t two lives or nine lives in American politics,” said Ellen Chesler, a historian and major fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton. “Maybe there is just one.”
To be clear, the press has not been charitable toward Mr. Clinton. In what might reasonably be considered a natural reaction to his demonstrated willingness to deal in subtext—the Jesse Jackson comparison being one of the more blatant examples—the operating assumption of the reporters covering him is that he always means something other than what he’s saying.
Hence the interpretation, for example, of a remark Mr. Clinton made at a stop in Fredericksburg, Va., on Feb. 12 that everything other than vision, planning and ability to govern is “smoke and mirrors,” which was taken as a frontal assault on the oratorically impressive Mr. Obama. Maybe it was. Or maybe he was simply making the perfectly valid and obvious point that a campaign, ideally, is decided based on things that are important.
While Mr. Clinton seems genuinely surprised that his eminently parse-able remarks have been so closely parsed, few Democrats outside the Clinton circle see it as anything extraordinary.
“He keeps slipping into it because it worked for him,” said Joe Trippi, who advised John Edwards, of Mr. Clinton’s tendency to make manipulative-sounding remarks.
Mr. Trippi argued that the campaign had made its intention to be aggressive clear from the start, and that Mr. Clinton’s history of bare-knuckles tactics gave him little credence in calling foul.
“It’s the boy crying wolf,” said Mr. Trippi. “It’s not that we just got this in our heads somehow.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Bill Clinton is arguably the most gifted American politician of 20th century, post war period.
What is so unfortunate is that, for many within the democratic party, if polling is to be believed act as if Bill has assumed the role of the ball player that is working past his prime.
Folks see flashes of the old brilliance, but more & more they see that he strikes out more often and his batting average and slugging percentage is suffering when compared to the next phenom that is the new big draw and is bringing in the numbers while in the running for a gold glove.
Bill had to give up working short stop for a move to first base and a seven spot in the order and still cannot grasp why some kid is getting all the press just because he is lucky while the old pro is just suffering through his first slump in years.
The fact is the baseball, like politics is an unfair sport. Just like baseball, folks count EVERYTHING in politics. Especially during the 24 hour news cycle.
An era appears to be passing.
The world simply caught up to the plethora of Bill Clinton lies. He got away with it with television and newspapers, places where there are people under the pressure of tight deadlines. Now, in this age of the Internet, with so many news websites and people crawling all over the issues to find that one nugget to differentiate themselves from the flock, people check facts and Slick Willy perpetually comes up short.
Stick a cigar in this one. The Clinton facade is over.
Really, what's the difference between Barack Hussein Obama and his mentor, Jeremiah Wright?
Both are flashy orators.
Jeremiah Wright came to a flagging church and revived it with his anti-American militant stance.
Barack Obama came to a flagging Democratic party and revived it with his anti-Washington militant stance.
Jeremiah Wright is sitting on a pot of money in his $10 mil house.
Barack Obama is sitting on a pot of money in his Primary "house."
Bill Clinton has NEVER been anything but a shady used car
salesman. The reason he got away with it for so long is
because the Dems had nothing else to compare him to. But,
when he's finally compared to somebody like Barack Obama,
it is glaringly obvious just how petty, small-minded, vain
and LUCKY Bill Clinton has always been. It's over...
ummm here is a difference, Barack Obama is Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is Jeremiah Wright. If we are going to hold Hillary to the same standards, then isn't it her fault that a medicine factory got bombed because Bill Clinton's army messed up? Isn't it her fault that NAFTA got passed? If Hillary is going to take credit for Bill's experience, she can't just pick and choose what she wants to flaunt.
What do your comments have to do with this article about Bill Clinton? The reason Obama is sitting on a pot of money is because people such as myself believe in him, and don't fall for your guilt by association logic. I donated to his campaign twice already and think I will again today. Do you really think comments by one's preacher should determine if you vote for Obama or not?
that's funny...it's not the boy crying wolf, its the wolf crying wolf.
I used to love Bill Clinton and did have high regard for Hillary as well. All that has changed. I can no longer listen to either of them as they try to steal the nomination from Obama.
Hillary is not the annointed one and frankly I am sick of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-? dynasties. Each time I hear Hillary pay the victim or attack Obama, I donate more money to the Obama campaign. IT IS time for a CHANGE!
After sixteen years of kissy-face coverage from the fawning media the Clintons are shocked that the same media have turned on them and are actually fact-checking the Clint's endless stream of self-serving lies. Now BJ is out there, running hard for his third term, er, I mean for the person he loves more than 90% of the other women he's been with in the last two years, and would move back in with if her address changed to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But for now he'll just have to stay strong and keep on bragging about the balanced budget he vetoed three times and now takes credit for, or the capital gains tax cut and welfare reform he opposed until Dick Morris told him it was in his political best interests to sign (if people want jobs maybe they should elect Dick Morris)and have his security detail pull the occasional honey out of the crowd for some one on one politicing later over some champagne.
It continues to amaze me that articles can refer to Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark about Obama without noting Bill's own Iraq fairy tale - the claim that he was against the war from the beginning despite the abundant record of 2003 statements in support of the invasion. Yes, Bill Clinton knows an Iraq fairy tale when he sees one because he has authored them himself. More to the point of this article, I think Bill's political prowess has always been overrated. He prospered primarily because the smallness of his political enemies caused a backlash in his favor. Once the lies and manipulations impacted someone people liked, however, they fell flat. This is not the mark of a great political operative, but rather a lucky one.
I think that many, especially in the Democratic Party, have elevated Bill beyond the acheivements of his years in office. Scandals aside, the so-called boom years of the 90's ended in the dot.com crash in his last year in office. (Much as the steady growth since then has disappeared in the housing/mortgage bubble of this winter.) The unemployment rate in 1996 when Clinton ran for re-election was 5.4 percent this month in the Bush 'recession' it is 5.1 percent. Clinton came into office with Democrats in control of both houses and left with Republican majorities. History will remember Clinton as a perhaps a gifted politician but a flawed personality and an average President at best.
The notion that Clinton "saved the Democratic Party" in the 1990s is just nonsense. He won in 1992 mostly because of the splitting of the Republican vote by Ross Perot.
What the heck is wrong with these past Presidents who think they are oracles? Jimmy Carter is making nice with terrorists. He was a know-nothing, do-nothing President. He helped depose the Shaw of Iran, and what have we got now? A terrorist Iran.
Then there's Bill "Bubba" Clinton - The "First Black President" is an obvious racist! All he and Hillary care about is their power. They both feel she's entitled to the Presidency. It's her turn.
O'Bama - please! Of course, we should care what he's been hearing in his church for the last 20 years. Of course, his "preacher" has influenced him. Without a tele-prompter, he dithers and stumbles around and has trouble getting his golden words out. He is the MOST liberal Democrat in the party.
Hang onto your wallet folks. If either of these two enter the White House, they'll pick your pockets clean. They are nothing but socialists.
It seems to me that the Clintons' so callded "legacy" has been incrementally catching up with them for some time now. I think they are tired, but so addicted to politics that they don't know they are tired. They run and fight because that is all they know how to do. It's the pursuit of power for its own sake.
Because you have two candidates who are essentially straight-line Democrats, the primary campaign is not about politics or political positions. It's about personalities, and the joint Clinton personality can't match the fluent elegance and likability of the Obama personality. His racial mix also adds something new and exciting that is stirring the great majority of the black electorate and those among the white electorate who view things mostly through the prism of race.
As a Republican, I'll confess to schadenfreude at watching the Clintons being slowly strangled to death by their own party. It doesn't get any better than this.
Hillary deserves to be the Democratic nominee to advance over Obama and take on the obvious Republican nominee in the General Election. I'm not opposed to having Billary back in the White House because the United States prospered during those years. I don't even care that when Sen. Clinton talks about healthcare, she is talking about health insurance. Yes, I'm saying I'll take 2 Clintons for the price of 1 vote.
v/r
ME
To Marcos Ellisson: A question, if you please. What security clearance should Mr. Clinton have while doing his yet-undefined work in the "two-fer" presidency?
I have a serious concern about an indivdual who has shown he does not hesitate to engage in activity which exposes him to blackmail be given access to security matters.
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton
By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A06
PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
I agree that Bill Clinton was, and is, a brilliant campaigner - in a General Election, when he has an opponent diametrically opposed to his own politics.
The problem is that in the Primaries he is using the same sharp wit, strategies, and sly critiques against someone that his own Party has chosen as one of its prime candidates who has the respect, liking and trust of a large slice of not only Democrats, but also Independents and even some Republicans. You cannot use the same tactics against someone who represents your own values, vision and Party, in the same way as someone who is your political enemy.
It's a pity he has not been able to distinguish the difference and yes, his legacy is thoroughly tarnished - we forget about his Middle East peace initiatives, his eventual decision to take a courageous stand in the Balkans, Northern Ireland etc. and see a "bitter', older political hack "strutting his stuff".
Take a poll and learn what the people want to hear.
Tailor your message based on that poll.
When things change and the message needs to change, tell the people they misheard you in the past.
That is the Clinton Legacy.
A pitiable shell of a man.
The Clinton legacy:
1. Lie, deny and attack.
2. Lie, deny and attack.
3. Lie, deny and attack.
Always worked before. Just ask Carville, Begala, Blumenthal, Lindsey, etc. Wonder why it isn't working now.
Calling President McCain, calling President McCain....
Bill Clinton is "defending his wife and the love of his life."
Now that is rich! Bill Clinton is a liar, sociopath and serial adulterer. Bill and Hillary are "married props" for one another. Their so-called marriage is merely an arrangement
to make them palatable to the American public. And now the subterfuge has been exposed for what it is...just another big LIE!
I really hope the good people of PA. put the boot to Billary for the last time. It is in your ballpark, kick them out of the ballpark and out of all of America's lives for good. I am so sick of their lies, lies and more lies.
Web rumor has it that in the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency the Secret Service agents assigned to the White House informally referred to Clinton as "Panty Bandit." Any collaborating info out there?
NOOOOOOO. Bill Clinton was NEVER good. He got 43% in 1992; lost the Democrats both houses of Congress in 1994; didn't manage to get 50% against the worst major party candidate in my lifetime and was impeached. If he'd had any talent at all, he would never have been impeached. He managed to get 50% of the population at least to despise him personally. He's a moral reprobate, defiling women, demanding sexual favors from women, selling pardons, buckraking in his post presidency. He weakened his party. That was why they didn't have the courage to stand up to Bush against the lunacy of invading Iraq. It is a tragedy that this man was ever president.
Its been a long hard slog for the patriotic wing of the Democratic Party to prevent Bill Clinton from end-running the Constitution and installing his wife in the Presidency, a la Ma Ferguson and Lurleen Wallace. God bless those voters and Barack Obama.
As President Clinton makes blunder after blunder in this campaign, perhaps we need to reexamine our assumptions on the former President. If, indeed, Bill Clinton is oh so intelligent, with such a brilliant political mind, how do we explain this? We don’t. It is clear that befuddled pundits are confusing eloquence with intelligence. You can have one without the other. We can all cite examples of others in our own lives. Can anyone cite another president who acted so stupidly so often while in office? It is a serious question. What level of intellect did President Clinton evidence when he chose, on multiple occasions, to take up with his intern while in the White House? Pretty smart guy? Then, when he got caught, he made the conscious and deliberate decision to perjure himself in his Paula Jones sexual harassment suit, while sitting in the presence of a federal judge, Susan Webber Wright. Real smart, right? It gets worse. Months after he was caught in the civil perjury, he chose to do it again – this time in a criminal grand jury. Just brilliant, right? Clinton supporters often refer to his negative history in the singular as Clinton’s “mistake,” as if it were a single indiscretion. But these were serial stupidities. For his pattern of moronic behavior, he foolishly risked and endured disgrace and impeachment. He was twice disbarred (Arkansas and US Supreme courts.) Judging from the objective evidence – including his recent blunders on the campaign trail -- President Clinton has not demonstrated he is all that smart. Neither is there any real objective proof that he is all that popular. And if he is so popular with democrats, how is it that the Clintons are being whooped in their own party by a rookie? True, a talented and impressive rookie – but a rookie nonetheless.
Former President Clinton honed his glibness by talking the girdles down on young girls (or proper young women); there was greater success by using embellishments and tall tales. If he were to actually have great skill and intellect, one might wonder where the inventions, novels or great constitutional thesis or writings are. Again, is glibness a function of greatness? Today, The Boss got coverage for endorsing Senator Obama as if he were truly an insightful philosopher espousing unusual wisdom and inspiration instead of only being a noted musician and entertainer. Maybe it is the era of mass media and instant gratification but nothing has changed for Bill Clinton except he no longer uses the 57 Chevy. .
.
Right now, if you go to HuffPo, there's the following headline: "Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: 'Screw 'Em.'" (That quote came from a Jan. 1995 Camp David retreat, and is attributed to a book by professor Benjamin Barber).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides already appearing in a books about the '90s, another reporter brought it up previously during this cycle. Here's how ABC's Jake Tapper related the Camp David meeting in October 2007, quoting from Sally Bedell Smith's book on the Clintons' marriage.
"Somewhat surprisingly, Hillary also attacked working-class white southerners who had forsaken the Democratic party, and in an oblique way she took on her husband as well. 'Screw 'em,' she said, 'you don't owe them a thing, Bill, they're doing nothing for you.' Bill rose to their defense, 'as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades,'" as one attendee recalled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this newest Clinton flashback follows just three days after HuffPo's Apr. 13 headline: "Bill Clinton Flashback: "All These Economically Insecure White People...Are Scared To Death."
"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, 1991.
I believe,sadly, that we live in a racist nation. I do not believe that Obama will ever be able to beat McCain in November. Please remember that the people voting in primaries are the informed, progressive people of all races. White, racist America will not vote for Obama in the general election. Clinton is our only chance to take back the White House from the war-mongering, racist,sexist, hommophobic,anti-choice, anti-environmentalist, prorich,anti-labor Republican Party. Sad, but true. Peace To All!