Why can't Bill defend his wife....

but the other candidates spouses can?

And as a former President he should be more respectful of the attention he will automatically receive.

"attacked" anyone?

I'm trying to figure out why someone would consider Clinton campaigning for his wife is "attacking". I would have figured if it was so obvious, it would be easy to point to some examples. Guess not.

He is not attacking he is campaigning and explaining and the media is doing their best to help the others and bring Hillary down.

when Kerry won Iowa and automatically became the choice for the Democratic nomination.

Bullshit tekisui! What did Obama think when he threw his hat in the race!! I mean come on. If he can't withstand the attacks of someone in his own party (who by the way likes him) then how in the hell is he going to take on Rush Limbaugh and the republican slime machine?!? If he is complaining now, he will be crying then. Of course Bill is going to fight for his wife and attack her attackers. Nobody complained when he atttacked Bush for John Kerry. I mean get real. This is polotics 101. Obama needs to grow a spine. I mean he is the one that thought it was smart to start this campaign by attacking Hillary. I mean did he think the Clintons were push overs? Get real!

And they have told him to cool it. If anything, Bill, acting as Hillary's attack dog has lost a lot of respect. And it has made Hillary look bad.

The Clinton's are rough and dirty, everyone knows that. They play to win. I think Obama is holding his own fine. I am not worried about Limpballs or puke slimers. They will go after the Democratic Nominee, whomever it may be. The pukes have to lie, cheat and steal because America wouldn't buy the shit they are selling otherwise.

The former President should have a little more self-respect and pride during this Primary season.

insist impeachment is OFF the table?

who are going along to get along right now to give bush what he wants in the so called stimulus package

And attacking a Democratic candidate in a primary?

"Nobody complained when he atttacked Bush for John Kerry."

:wtf:

house how can you run the white house". I guess we are to over look this comment by her. uh huh HELL NO! She wants to play in the sand box then she better get ready to get sand thrown back at her too.....

which alters the meaning of what is said, Here is part of whats before and after

So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded

Which shows quite clearly that she is referring to their own family and children

John--but her involvement is NOTHING compared to Bill's. He's actually going through Obama's Senate record and prior statements--that's Hillary's job, not his. His role should be to promote his wife, not play hatchet-man. Undignified for a former Prez, and makes Hillary look once again like she is where she is because of her husband--thanks for reminding us, Billary!

People are already disappointed in Bill Clinton for what he's doing and seeing Hillary in a new, unfavorable light. He better cut it out or he'll lose the election for his wife.

Elizabeth and Michelle step in the ring to defend their spouses. The only reason everyone attacks Bill is because he knows how the game is played and plays it better.

If it forgives Bill and Hillary's tactics, then it also forgives George Bush's tactics in 2000, doesn't it? After all, "this is politics"...

illegal activities from what should be acceptable in politics.

are lies and spin put out by the media..

comparison. Bill should be mindful of this, and careful to only promote his wife--but now he looks power-hungry, like he only cares about getting back into the WH, no matter what sort of party-damaging slash-and-burn tactics it takes. It's sad. And Michelle and Elizabeth never engaged in using the minutiae of past statements and policies of an opposing candidate against him or her, the way Bill goes through Obama's. Michelle and Elizabeth advocate for their husbands (and have occasionally taken shots) on general concepts, not in a specific "I'm going to take that guy down" sense. Michelle and Elizabeth are NOT considered the most recent head of the Dem party--Bill is. And he's proving he cares nothing about the party.

I'm getting sick of hearing the Obama groups crying like little 3 yrs olds. I don't hear Edwards complaining about Bill at ever turn. Obama just needs to get over it. What the hell does this man think it will be like if he gets the Nom.?????? The repukes will eat him for lunch and then poop him out.

I saw the video of Bill Clinton's anti-Obama ranting in plenty of places. Like on the New York Times website.

As he is the most recent Democratic President, I would expect that Bill Clinton will respect the outcome of the primary process and support the eventual nominee, whoever wins.

Some of what he has been saying makes it difficult to see how Bill could campaign for Obama in the fall.

even if he does win the nomination. The repugs will put up roadblocks because they and don't want a black man telling them what to do.

that his political jujitsu would deflect any attacks and leave them both looking good?

Knowing his skills, I half believe he is deliberately sabatoging her candidacy - he's too good to fuck up this much by accident.

Is she the strong woman she's been making herself out to be, or is she a weak woman who needs her husband to defend her? As a woman who believes in equal rights and strong women fighting their own fights, I'm ashamed of her.

I am proud of her for fighting back...

She let her husband fight back for her! That's my point.

That is, after all, the goal. Not trying to prove silly points.

How far we've strayed from our ideals as Democrats!

There's nothing wrong with it. It's within the boundaries of what is legal and what is fair.

Democratic voters can decide if they approve or not -- that's what elections are for.

I'm sure that if Michelle Obama comes out in public, before the press, and gets angry about people picking on Obama, that you'll be fine with it, right? (And I'll bookmard your answer to save it for later!)

you seem to desire.

Michelle Obama can say anything she likes - the voters will decide if it works or not. It's all just strategy.

If it helps any: I am an evolutionist and I understand survival of the fittest. The error most make with that is they think "fittest" means the physically strongest, or most selfish, or some other hogwash. But there are a lot of ways to be "fittest" that include things like being the most cooperative, most thoughtful and soon.

Political campaigns are similar. Some strategies work and some don't. While I have personal feelings, tat doesn't make a strategy unfair or wrong. Take Obama's use of homophobes to build links in certain communities that are anti-gay. I have a personal problem with it, but it's a legitimate strategy that might pay off for him.

I'm fine with the voters selecting.

What planet are you living on? Do yuo really think they'll just ignore Bill's rants if she gets the nomination? They're experts at things like that. Can't you just imagine what Rove will do with this? He's going to make her lose the general election is she's the nominee. It gives the GOP the opportunity to attack Hillary without actually "attacking Hillary", if you know what I mean. Now they'll have TWO targets.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are the only people who have successfully defeated the Republicans at this level in over two decades.

I offer no disrespect for you or your opinion. Who knows - you might be right. But I have a different opinion.

I'd be right there with you. But you don't - you have an opinion, no more verifiable than anyone else's.

And, quite frankly, Bill and Hillary Clinton have a much better track record on how to win a campaign than you, or I or almost any living Democrat. That's not a put down of any sort - just pointing out that even in a gamble there are people who have a better track record of being right than others.

front page today. Michelle.

I mean come on! This is a tough business. If Obama can't handle it then he should get out now! The Clintons have had to have so many things said and done to them the past 15 years and they are still standing. Obama is so shook up right now, it looks like he could cry any minute! I bet you can't guess what the repubs strategy will be.

they complain, if they see as not fighting back she is letting others do it she can't win with some people...They complained the other night because she fought back, which she has been doing all along..

Obama and Edwards if they need their wifes out there helping and sticking up for them?????? Does that make them weak men?????????

Did he really think that Bill Clinton would sit on the sideline? Again it just shows that Mr. Perfect Obama is just not ready for big time politics! I think he will be someday, but just not this time. He just doesn't have the tough skin yet.

He's put up a more than credible fight against the biggest and strongest political machine in the country. He's given someone who assumed she had the nomination wrapped up a fight that's clearly scared the shit out of her and all the Clinton acolytes. He'll lose, but it should never have been this close. Pathetic what a newcomer like Obama has been able to do. Just imagine how the much more experienced repuke machine will maul her.

Obama has done as well as he has because he has an awesome campaign staff which by the way is made up mostly of the same people that got Bill elected in 92 & 96!! He has not been in politics long and doesn't have too much baggage. But in the end I think people realize that he is just too green for big time politics! Nice spin though.

And it has far more to do with how he's presented himself as a candidate than staff. Furthermore, he's been in elected politics for 11 years. And the Illinois state leg isn't like the Maine state leg. It's not the U.S. Senate, but it's certainly experience. And his savvy has been apparent to anyone who has eyes or isn't a Clintoid.

Now listen up Clintonite and read closely. (google Nicholas Kristoe)
Bill Clinton was running in 1992 against George H.W. Bush, who was was then trumpeting his won experience over callow youth of Bill Clinton. That year Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America "in the hands of experience.

"The same old experience is not relevant." Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring. "The same old experience is not relevant." He suggested the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience "rooted in the real lives of real people" so that "it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."

say nothing when Obama criticized his administration when he was talking about his hero Reagan?

During the last debate? You don't think he unjustifiably got upset with Hillary, do you? After all, he was showing some spine. I'm so disappointed in these latest DU double standards.

OK, maybe she'd still be a corporate lawyer for Walmart...

:shrug:

Bill comes across as a red-face, screaming, lying Little League daddy on the sidelines yelling at the ump. He's proven to me that he is a classless, selfish, lying egomaniac.

! You are watching to much tv. What did you think Bill was going to do? Right, fight for his wife's campaign just as hard as he did for John Kerry!! Remember?

trying to act like a major leaguer....BC is confirming his classless actions by his anomalous, self-centered attitude. Acting like a tailless fairy

supporters know better than to take that bait. obama's in way over his head. he is not ready for primetime and that is why hillary will win.

the media played the race card and Obama is answering to their call. They know this had nothing to do with race.

Hypocrite.

Oh, its only expedient to criticize Bush during elections, but not when Bush is doing all kind of wonderful things like torturing people and spying on us.

I'm glad that works for you.

cool it. When a popular, former president gets down and dirty in a Primary, the Democratic Party suffers. With his active role, the charges are flung at our expense: Hillary is weak, can't do it on her own. If Obama can't handle the Clinton's, think about the pukes. And on and on.

Do you see? Just read this thread. If Bill had kept it civil, about issues, Democrats wouldn't be going at each other so nastily. He should know better.

But in fact Hill is doing well with what she's doing.

Edited to correct typo

I still think it could inflict damage if the major players are not careful. Hopefully, Bill will cool it, as has been suggested by others. I think and hope he is smart enough to know when he has gone far enough, and let it play out.

as a whole - we know that. So I don't think we can use DU conversations to dtermine what the party as a whole thinks.

why did some get angry when they saw her fighting back,. What is she suppose to do sit there and let him throw everything at her and say nothing?

It is one thing to air the dirty laundry, the past votes, the issues. I thought the slugfest at the debate was healthy, and probably done with winks and nods. They are getting the whisper campaigns out in the open and scrubbing off.

The Primary is not a time to go personal. It only hurts Democrats.

Republican talking ponts. Bill has every right to campaign for his wife as much as anybody does. This is America dude! If Bill wants to risk his popularity with some factions of the democratic party for something he believes strongly in, then that is his right! All you Obama people need to quit complaining because it is making him seem soft!

I like Hillary and Obama and Edwards. I am a Democrat. I just wish Bill believed more in the Democratic Party than in himself.

BTW, I like Bill, too. I've lost some respect, but like much of what he's done.

Obama is no softy. He is a strong candidate and would make a strong Nominee. As would Hillary or Edwards.

Those who are complaining that the Big Dog ought to be on a shorter former-Presidential leash are just pissed that he's not out there doing it for THEM. Bill is the most brilliantly skilled politician of our generation. It just happens that he has, to use a Southernism, a "dog in this hunt."

Deal with it.

Bake

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Get over it. Whether you like it or not Bill is Hillary's spouse. Yes it sucks for Obam that Bill just happens to be an ex-President, but it is time to suck it up and stop acting like cry babies.

the good things his wife might do, rather than crawling down into the muck occupied by the likes of Karl Rove and the ghost of Lee Atwater.

there is nothing wrong with bill campaigning for hillary.

but the way he's doing is turning off alot of folks (me included obviously). The lasting effect on his legacy? Who knows? If HRC wins the nomination, then Bill's primary role/actions will probably be forgotten in the larger battle for the nation. However, if HRC loses the nomination, he will be diminished IMHO.

Or it may be just fine with most Dems. Again, no one knows. It's just a political strategy. If it fails, it will cost Clinton.

the lead story is about Michelle Obama going on the attack against Bill. She can do it, I wonder why.

:hi: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :hi:

bill isn't defending his wife he's lying and distorting his wife's closet opponent.

DJ13 (418 posts) Tue Jan-22-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Zip It, Bill!
Karen Russell
Tue Jan 22, 10:50 AM ET

Senator Obama nailed it during the South Carolina debate when he mentioned Bill Clinton, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/huffpost/cm_huffpost/s... /*http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com /
Don't get me wrong. I love Bill Clinton. I always have. I hope I always will. But lately, not so much.

In the '90s President Clinton's slickness was just sad and creepy. I remember "slick" Clinton when he fibbed that he "didn't inhale". I cringed when Clinton wagged his finger at America insisting that he did not "have sexual relations with that woman." I was downright embarrassed when, with a straight-face, Clinton declared "that depends on the definition of what "is" is.

Well, "slick" Clinton is back. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Before Iowa, "Hillary the Inevitable" had the numbers, the machine and the name on her side in this race. Despite being the clear and unequivocal underdog, Obama built a grassroots campaign, brought in independents and got disillusioned Republicans to cross the aisle.

Obama starting gaining ground and closing the gap. That's when the "fun" started. That's when Hillary told reporters about her plans to attack Obama.

For months, we saw "the inevitable frontrunner" running a tight and disciplined campaign. Then as Obama rose in the polls, suddenly Hillary and her surrogates started dropping a series of "misunderstood" slurs. They fit a familiar pattern, "smear, play dumb, own up and apologize". Rinse, lather and repeat.

We are supposed to believe that as Obama gained ground on Clinton that it's just mere coincidence that Clinton surrogates painted Obama as a risky "shucking and jiving", "roll of the dice", "cocaine-loving", "drug-dealing", ";Reagan-loving", "closet-Muslim" , "fairytale-living", "establishment", "less black than President Clinton" "rookie"?

We are supposed to believe that these are isolated "mistakes". Remember these are the people who went after Senator Obama's kindergarten record and then tried play it off as a joke.

Now it appears that "Trasher-in-Chief" Bill is in charge of keeping the "fun" going. Apparently, the Clinton campaign figured out that having Hillary taking the cheap shots at her opponents made her less "likable".

It started with Clinton trashing Obama on the war. When a red-faced and angry Clinton twisted Obama's anti-war record calling it a "fairytale". However, according to the New York Times, "; a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.'' "

All of the Clinton's huffing and puffing won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that Obama has always been against it.

Then in Nevada, Clinton claimed that Obama was running ads "telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

This simply isn't true. Those ads don't exist. To many, the idea of getting Republicans to cross the aisle and become "Obama Republicans" is appealing. Remind me again, what is wrong with trying to woo independents and Republicans? Taylor Marsh seems to think there's something wrong with that.

Ms. Marsh, also ran with the Clinton exaggeration of voter intimidation, "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter."

President Clinton went on to claim Obama said Republicans had all the good ideas, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

The Clinton assertion that Obama said Republicans had "all the good ideas" just isn't true. Obama said the Republican challenged "conventional wisdom" and moved the country in a fundamentally different direction and that we Democrats can learn from that strategy. That people wanted optimism, clarity and to talk differently about issues and values. Obama pointed out that the unfortunately the Republican ideas promoted by this strategy were bad and wrong.

When Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help other Democrats get elected he said, "I think Ronald 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. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. 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. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton continued "the twist" of Obama's words during the debate. Why is Team Billary twisting the facts on Senator Obama? They are playing to win, truth be damned. Campaigning for his wife is one thing but continuing to trash Obama with misrepresentations is frankly disappointing. Daddy Bush didn't trash John McCain when McCain was running against Shrub. Clinton needs to rein it in. If Hillary can't control Bill or her surrogates, why do we believe she's ready to lead on day one?

Think about how the Clinton campaign responded to Bob Johnson's smear. When she was caught between a rock and a big donor, look how she responded.

First, they denied it was a smear and "took him on his word". Yeah, right. Unlike less powerful surrogates, they couldn't get Johnson to walk the plank. Finally, after Johnson was rightfully shamed into apologizing, Clinton conveniently flip-flopped claiming Johnson was "out of bounds". Hillary was for the smear before she was against it. It's familiar territory for her.

And, if it's true that Hillary is not campaigning in South Carolina, this is just the Clintons lowering expectations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080122/cm_huffpost/0... ;_ylt=AtDt1i93AQHVgpICphNm1Das0NUE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4164573#4165010

compared Bills adminstration to Reagan's ,Bill should have said nothing about it. I say Bushit!

they are all distorting each other words, get real. Geez.

If all he were doing were going around the country talking about how great Pres. Hillary will be, there's not much anyone could legitimately say. If in the morning he were talking about Hillary on Health Care, afternoon on Hillary's economic plans, and evenings a good old fund raiser, no one could really touch him. But when he starts bitin', people bite back.

what did he expect.

As Edwards demonstrated so ably in the recent debate, it is possible to "attack" (critique) without being an attack dog. Bill comes across as a hired thug IN COMPARISON TO how he would sound if he presented himself as the elder statesman eager to pass the baton to the future president (who HAPPENS to be his wife). It is the lack of dignity we associate with fighting "in the trenches" that is offensive, and we must remember that Bill's status is so great compared to that of the other spouses, that it is as if Michelle Obama is shooting water pistols and Bill is using an AK-47. That MAY be an exaggeration, of course...

he's doing precisely the latter

If he can't handle this, how is Obama supposed to handle the GOP?

What Obama is getting from the Hillary campaign is child's play compared to an all out battle with the GOP.

Hell, you've still got Hillary pointing out where they agree and Bill saying he'd support Obama's run if he's the nominee. That's a sight better than he'd get out of the GOP.