2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill Clinton was criticizing “awful legacy” of republican obstructionism, not President Obama
It is shameful that anyone would advance such a notion the Bill would speak ill of Pres. Obama's Presidency. Just shamefl
Tweet:
Bill Clinton was criticizing awful legacy of republican obstructionism, not President Obama http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/bill-clinton-was-criticizing-republican-obstructionism-not-president-obamas-legacy/24213/
#p2 #ImwithHer
Bill Clinton was criticizing awful legacy of republican obstructionism, not President Obama
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/bill-clinton-was-criticizing-republican-obstructionism-not-president-obamas-legacy/24213/
By Bill Palmer | March 22, 2016
Former President Bill Clinton did something remarkably rare for him this week: he misspoke in a completely incoherent manner. It was jarring because Bill Clinton generally doesnt misspeak. It was even stranger because in his jumble of words it sounded like he might have been saying that President Obama is leaving an awful legacy behind. Even as opponents have tried to pounce on the odd gaffe, its clear in context that Bill was talking about something else entirely.
......................The very notion that Bill Clinton would suddenly decide to throw Barack Obama under the bus is absurd on its face.
When I met Bill Clinton last week, he couldnt stop talking about how President Obama doesnt get the credit he deserves. And we all remember Bill getting up there at the 2012 convention and delivering the fiery defense Obamas first four years in office, which helped him get reelected. Does any sensible person really believe that hes suddenly doing a one-eighty on his view of Obama for no apparent reason, at a time when Hillary is standing closer to Obama than ever? Of course not. Thats nonsense. So just what was Bill talking about yesterday?
One of the things Bill Clinton has been harping on for the past month is how democratic voters have failed to turn out in midterms, handing congress to the republicans and setting the stage for obstructionism. Sure enough, he clarified today that his criticism was of the awful legacy of republicans trying to obstruct every move that President Obama has tried to make. There is no story here. Move along, unless youre so afraid of Hillary Clinton winning that youre willing to resort to ludicrous fake controversies.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Anyone with a modicum of common sense KNOWS what Bill was referring to - and it WASN'T Obama's tenure in office.
As for those with NO common sense - who actually believe that Bill (or Hill) would suddenly, and for no good reason at all, distance themselves from Obama in the midst of the primaries - they'll obviously believe anything.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)No, this doesn't mean I am sure Bill was slamming Obama. But I have my suspicious, because again, it is not clear. I don't remember what he has said about PBO in the past.
gabeana
(3,166 posts)are something else it is what it is
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)A lie is as good as the truth if repeated often enough. And this from the campaign standing on the moral high ground.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)isn't the campaign that stands on moral high ground?
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)As I replied deep into a Bernie-slanted thread on this topic, what Bullhorn Bill was referring to was the economic collapse and its aftermath --eight years-- and the other seven years of Bush before the collapse-- he explicitly referred to Bush economic policy. Considering the odd way he divided the time spans, its plain to me that he was not dissing President Obama; that would have been "the legacy of the last seven years," and the eight years of Bush before that. So even the campaign's explanation (and Bill Palmer's piece in this OP) about Republican obstructionism is off the mark. Yes, his statement might seem a little incoherent, he could have made his point more clearly, but this whole line of attack about rejecting Obama doesn't seem right to me.
Sorry fellow Bernie fans. Let's win on real issues. I don't think this one is a real issue.
More meaningful to me is the fact that a former president, and bona fide Historic Figure gave a speech that 800 people lined up to hear, while the day before, more than ten times that many lined up across the street to hear the other guy.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)again and again. If this is so absolutely and definitively
clear, why engage in that?
And why leave out the part about deregulation causing
the crash in 08?
Some of you must be worried that people heard the
words, but are too stupid to draw the "correct"
conclusions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)"A lot of people say you don't understand that it's rigged now," he said of the nation's struggling economy. "Yeah, it's rigged now, because you don't have a president who's a change-maker, who, with a Congress who will work with him." He then added that Obama had done a lot better than he gets credit for. But he did fault Obama and the obstructionist Republicans.
mobyz
(10 posts)Please go far, far away.