Or where they say what they mean and get caught? Kind of like carrying bags.

Talk about a fantasy.... as well as an off-angle insult to Obama.

One could interpret this as Bill Clinton performing his racist dog whistles again like he did in 2008.

Jimmy Carter rightfully called his ass out for that!

in at least the House in 2017-18.

Is this an admission that HRC is already planning to move as far to the right as Bill did after 1994?

Most their policy positions are aligned. She will get a lot done. More H1-B visas, more NAFTA type free trade agreements, tougher laws for non-violent drug offenders, lots of saber rattling for the MIC, bomb some random country, maybe even a small war... that is a decent list of things the GOP wont obstruct under her presidency

But the OP author like to drop these turds and run. She's not big on answering our questions, she just wants to throw shit against the wall and hope it sticks or we clean it up. That's been her MO for a long time. She might even be a paid poster.

But in the context of the entire speech, it reeks of dismissal of the Obama presidency. If he intended to suggest that the GOP was the problem, it should have been more clear in what he said. While I could be swayed to agree that, GOP obstructionism was what he meant, in context, that isn't what he was saying at all. Bill screwed the pooch, and that's why they rushed an aide out to clarify.

he was referring to republican obstruction that has been occurring for the last 8 years.

Hillary and Bill have both made it clear in the campaign Hillary will continue President Obama legacy.

However, what is known is Sanders has said on several occasions he was not happy with the way President Obama ran his administration, and suggested that President Obama should be challenged in 2012.

When Bill Press released his book before the Iowa caucus, "Buyer's Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down", Sanders endorsed the book which discusses the failures of President Obama.

Sorry, the campaign which has been negative about the Obama administration has NOT been the Clinton campaign, but the Sanders' campaign.

Maybe he spends too much time listening to Debbie?

I mean, this guy commands six figures for his speeches too. It seems a little odd that someone of that caliber would screw up so royally.

If it was a mistake it was a big one.

I've just really been seeing him for the sleaze ball he is in the past eight or nine years.

Bill lost his luster and now we can see him for who he really is.

Make no mistake. I voted for him twice but dang, things have changed.

"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife."

And Bill Clinton's aid added clarification.

"A Bill Clinton aide later clarified that the former President was "referring to the GOP's obstructionism and not President Obama's legacy.""


No, he was talking about the state of the economy, and he says Hillary will (somehow) reverse what's been going on in the last 15 years -- even though she repeats "I'm going to continue Obama's policies." Sounds like a contradiction to me.


:large

And that was my take from jump. Earlier he said that everyone will rise together like they did in the 90's.

Why didn't Bill say "the last eight years of Republican obstruction"?

Oh that's right...he was happier as president AFTER 1994, when the GOP took over Congress. He didn't even try to get a Democratic majority back in either chamber in 1996 or 1998(in 1996, it SHOULD have been easy...but no money and no significant staffing was put into any effort to flip the House).

Or will they get along just fine?????

If it had been called HillaryCare, he'd have a much better opinion of it.

Clinton was referring to GOP obstruction and some right wing group edited it and posted it on youtube and for it to be swallowed by this site is just sad

Anymore info than the link I supplied. They supplied the full qoute but it doesn't change the framing at all. They refer to the statement ftom Bills aid to change the context.

...those Nancy Reagan comments.

there would have been no need to "Clarify" Bill Clinton's remarks.

Never before has it been used to refer to Congress.

It was an intentional swipe at Obama.

The word legacy means a lot and as a former president Bill knows this.

This out of context snippet was put out there by Romney's America Rising PAC. It cut away the rest of the speech and disregarded the clarification. It is pathetic to see so many Sanders supporters running with it on DU.

Bill Clinton admires and respects Obama, unlike many here on DU. There was no intentional swipe at Obama. If it was intentional, Bill would not have issued the clarification.

Context and clarification is provided in this Crooks and Liars piece:
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/no-bill-clinton-did-not-describe-obama

A simple Google search proves that wrong. There are very few hits so it isn't a "common reference."

https://www.google.com/search?q=Legacy+of+Obstruction&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A3%2F20%2F2016%2Ccd_max%3A3%2F20%2F2000&tbm=

As far as Bill Clinton's "clarification," it's dog-whistle politics meant to appeal to the anti-Obama racists Clinton's are trying to pander to. Don't forget, the birther movement originated with them.

The birther movement did not originate with the Clintons. That is a right wing lie.

It most definitely was started among Clinton supporters/surrogates. Maybe you can tell me what did the Clintons do to stop it?

You should be ashamed to have repeated that ridiculous lie about the Clintons that Donald Trump has been pushing.

No Clinton "surrogates" were involved; the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with it. The Clintons have repeatedly based the ridiculous birther claims.

It was definitely promoted by a Clinton supporter and the Clinton's never disavowed it. Now, how about your proof of "Legacy of Obstruction" being a common reference to GOP obstructionism?

With regard to common use of the term "legacy of obstruction," Reid himself just used the term "legacy of obstruction" this month:

How about more than one? You should be able to find thousands of instances of it being used, since according to you, it's a common reference.


I'd also think President's legacy would be much more common since I can get 1000's of hits on that.

I proved you wrong and now you are just being silly.

You can only point to one single time where that phrase was used because you can't find the hundreds of other examples a so-called common phrase was used.

You lost. Thanks for playing!

Now you are just being silly. You lost. As will your candidate.

In the future, please refrain from using phrases you don't understand.

In the future, don't assert something you know is false.

Oh wait, it's you who did that.

If you searched for "legacy of Republican obstructionism," or other variations of that phrase, you would have pulled up many more references, like this rather well done piece:

http://www.mslaw.edu/mitch-mcconnells-obstructionist-legacy/

Let's see.. you started with "Legacy of Obstruction" which has now morphed into Mitch McConnell's obstructionism... FYI, I googled the exact phrase you said was a common reference to find it really wasn't all that common. You know, the one you highlighted in quotation marks.

By all means, move the goalposts some more to "prove" your point. Actually, don't... I have no interest in debated a dishonest Hillbot.

Mitch McConnell, as GOP majority leader in the Senate, was the architect of that "legacy." That awful "legacy" is the obstructionist legacy those recent articles I cited name as a "legacy" and discuss.

It is the OP, and you, who are dishonest in asserting Bill Clinton was referring to President Obama's legacy being "awful," rather than what he was obviously referring to: the awful GOP legacy of obstruction. You now refuse to address this and instead resort to juvenile personal attacks and name-calling, having lost the argument. This does not reflect well on your candidate.

Something that's a common reference should be found more than in recent articles. Oh, and it wasn't obvious seeing that the Clinton's had to issue clarifying statements. They've been doing this stuff for years... take a swipe and then walk it back.

Good luck on getting YOUR candidate elected in the GE. This Bernie supporter will be sitting the GE out. I was on the fence before, but your interaction just tipped it. A choice between two right wing corporatists isn't a choice at all.

Another dishonest statement on your part.


But funny.

There is some controversy about FDR saying this, but I think it applies here. The Clintons don't misspeak: they shamelessly pander to acheive their goals, throwing anyone in their path under the bus, including Obama. It's not like this is the first time it's happened.

I think its pretty easy to read between the lines of what he was saying when you read the full context and not take a snippet of what he said.

But you have your opinion and I respect that. I just see it differently and I think I layed out my reasoning pretty well.

... (and all the others like it today), there can no longer be any denial that straw-grasping is now an art form.

Obama ran his administration.

Sanders endorsed the Bill Press book "Buyer's Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down"

Ironically, it is the Sanders' campaign who has been critical of the Obama administration, not the Clinton campaign.

This suggestion is simply flame bait

there is a problem with Bill ( I mean medical) and it is possible. Or this was not a misstatement, and now they are trying to pull it back. I suspect they did not expect this to be recorded, if you get my drift. And the pull back, but this is about Congress is well... how to be nice... BULLSHIT!

IMHO Bill hates Obama. All you have to do is look at what he said to Kennedy. He probably still mad that a waiter beat him.

Clear to me that he's saying that hillary will work with the Republicans to screw us, so the empress can brag about her "accomplishments."

and then post their most stupid clickbait rather than any of their better articles.

To be clear, though Clinton misspoke I don't think he made any kind of Freudian slip. He was talking about republican obstructionism and Hillary's abilities. They're both strong supporters of President Obama in both words and more importantly actions.

I also think that he's very aware of how the word legacy relates to a presidency.

of the eight years 'before that' meaning the eight years of George W. Bush as President. To me it supports the view that he was referring to republican obstructionism because republicans still believe in that failed policy. Obama and both Clintons do not.

(while perhaps a bit overstated) describes. No question he should have fought harder to prevent deregulation. I think that veto-proof republican congress would have overturned it regardless. We need a better congress for any democratic president to enact liberal policy that helps reduce inequality.

Why is he your friend if he was such a god aweful President?

Perhaps they share some cordiality having both served as President and understanding the difficulty of that job. Their presidencies and economic policies were very different.

Unless there's some book called Bill and W.: We're Best Friends! that I missed.

They do some appearances talking about their presidencies. They call for more bipartisanship. Or being civil even though one disagrees. They laugh. People take photos. Then Salon, NY Post, Time etc. write headlines like 'Are Bill and W. BFFs?'

Much like this headline of the original post and the right wing hatchet job video that accompanies it. Click bait. Hardly substantive.

To my observation that their presidencies were different. Do you believe their presidencies and policies were substantively the same?

Republicans when he says "last eight years." He then slipped in the "seven years before that," line right after as cover. He hates Obama with a passion and everybody knows it. He fucked up and tried to put the Genie back in the bottle. The Clintons are slime buckets and need to fade off into the sunset. America can't afford any more of their neocon right wing bullshit.

It lets the listener take away from it whatever they want. If you want to move away from Obama's policies, thats what you'll hear...if you think the GOP obstructed and that's what he is referring to, that will be your take away. Its the exact same thing they do with every damn position, stay vague and leave enough wiggle room to change direction at any time.

... but can she erase the awful legacy of 1992-2000, where the bankers were deregulated to the point they could take down the economy with impunity?

I don't think so.

That doesn't mean he's above reproach.

And enthusiastically supported him both times. Hell, I'd probably vote for him in the primaries again if he could run.

And when did Clinton followers begin?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511538293

its not Bill Clinton.
the irony, of course, says a lot about the integrity of the system.
status quo uber alles.

So do you.

Clinton didn't.

Obama lost that county in 2012. Perhaps Bill was pandering, "Vote for my wife. Things will be better with her in office than Obama."

Perhaps the sun rises in the East.

Doing the right wing's work for them

Whether you like it or not.

Every once in a while, he screws up and tells the truth. So many lies to keep track of, anybody might do the same.

He misspoke here too. I just saw this, and it blows my mind. This proves that Hillary as President is just a front for Bill's third term. What a feminist milestone she's setting, right? She is such a fraud, and so is he. This is from May 2011...

Love that!

a proverbial pretzel to go along with whatever GOP policy's economic and domestic they want, so there won't be anything to obstruct, since they have the same agenda and goals.

That makes zero sense.

Some people are really desperate for a scandal.

of President Obama. He's still not over the 2008 election. One would think the fact that his wife is on the cusp of getting the democratic nomination would make him happy, but I guess not if you are Bill Clinton. So obsessed with power and entitlement. They act like they own the democratic party. They both make me sick to be quite honest. Until the democratic party rid themselves off this strong hold that the Clintons have on them, I fear for the future of the party after President Obama leaves office.