Robert Reich: Bill Clinton's Old Politics - "smear campaign against Obama"

Bill Clinton's Old Politics

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

Weird. Nice post though.

His sadness about the Bill Clinton of 2008 echoes mine.

I'm actually less of a fan of his than Hillary right now.

...and character IS an important issue in politics.

Besides, it wasn't just Reich who was in favor of free trade; it was the Clinton White House in general.

Nothing to do with Hillary, but yes, I am mad at Bill.

I have been searching the blog, but not finding it. I am liking most of the posts I read though.

implies the Trustees are saying what the middle projection reports. Krugman has written about this (and I wrote Bob - and Moynihan back in the 90's). It always has turned out that the 3rd projection has been closest to what occurred post it being made - and the 3rd projection shows no problem - EVER - for Social Security over the 75 years (the 3rd project is still quite conservative despite it being considered the least conservative of the 3).

And that is the result even after Bush's year 2001 decision to have the Social Security Actuaries reduce the Clinton level of expected GDP growth in the future 75 years down a ridiculous 1.6% per year. The Soc Security "problem" is a con job - but because Obama wants to give the GOP a SS cut as a gift in a bargain to get some left of center legislation passed, and has said he was ready to cut Social Security (because "the projections demand such cuts"), Bob is saying in the press and on his blog that there is a Social Security funding problem.

Good grief - he was a Trustee of the Social Security System in the 90's - and I know some of the actuaries that briefed him. For him to pretend he does not know the real situation is effectively telling a lie.

seems like a lie he can sneak past a lot of people though. It seemed like Hillary was saying there was an SS problem too, but she had no specific proposals except fiscal responsibility and a bipartisan commission.

payroll tax rate.

Plus as a long term change raising the "full benefit retirement age" to seventy over 30 years from the Reagan age 67 now in effect (being phased in - with age 62 remaining always as the first early retirement age), beginning around 2030 and hitting a full age 70 around 2076, makes sense if mortality improvements are going to be as projected.

Calling someone a liar demands a higher standard of proof than you have provided. You should be ashamed.

Both Reich, Clinton and Obama are all on record openly supporting free trade.

American workers should not have to support their families by competing with children working in India or China. Where is the integrity in that?

because his record shows support for it as well.

I think the only one that ran in the primaries was the one that just dropped out earlier today - Kucinich.

leftie. Too left for Bill's administration. I'm disappointed.

He isn't against trade, but he was one of the first to point out the backlash to globalization and advocate protecting labor. I posted this to that same poster hours ago, no response. Reich is definitely one of the good guys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4185903&mesg_id=4186035

Bob Reich carried water like so many others who have finally had enough as they watch this couple smear a good man.

When Robert Reich starts in calling their number, it's apparent that the Clintons have finally gone too far.

I wonder if anyone in Clinton's cabinet ever really liked him? Clinton has not "smeared" Obama. Anything that HC says will be regarded as a "smear" if it is against Obama, no matter the substance or truth of the matter. If Hillary comes anywhere near winning my hat is off to her. She will beat the MSM, the Republicans, the hate-Clinton Dems, mis-led African Americans, the dittoheads, the ill-informed, and the just plain evil. It's ironic that one of the biggest reasons that the Clintons are hated so much is that from day one of his terms in office he demonstrated his comfort with blacks, his almost kindred spirit. He appointed women, blacks, Hispanics, and disabled in high level positions within the government and for that he was most reviled by the political establishment at that time.

Weary of the Clintons.

They are so similar to so many other blogging sites and news sites comments.
Many in the Democratic Party are sickened by the Clintons behaviors and are promising to
not vote for Hillary if nominated.

He is correct. Bill Clinton is behaving as though he were Rove instead of like a president. He is demeaning the office.

I agree with him.

The thing I always loved about Clinton was despite the smearing and character assassination he never sunk to the level of his opponents and came out victorious. It really ruins my whole image of him to see him embrace the same politics he managed to overcome by taking the high road.

points about bil clinton are spot on..the bilarys can try to red herring fling all they want.

And guess what? Robert Reich isn't the only one saying it..just the latest as far as I know..

have seen a narrative begin to emerge tonight: The Clinton's are hurting the party
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 01:13 AM by Quixote1818
Tom Dashiell:

Daschle faults Bill Clinton's criticisms

"This is the same kind of tactic that Washington uses quite frequently," Daschle said. "I think it destroys the party. Ultimately, it divides us."

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/177125,daschle-...



Maureen Dowd:

The Clinton's — or “the 2-headed monster,” as The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_...

Mike Papantonio:
http://www.goleft.tv/viewer.asp?v=928&c=1
DUers: Hillary's strategy: Either I get the nom, or we ALL go down in flames
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Leading Democrats to bill clinton"
"Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

Black leader to Bill Clinton: 'Chill' on ObamaStory Highlights
Bill Clinton increasingly attacking Barack Obama on campaign trail

Obama says former president is distorting his record

Rep. Jim Clyburn says Bill Clinton should tone down rhetoric on behalf of wife

South Carolina Democrats hold crucial primary Saturday

"House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, one of the most powerful African-Americans in Congress, weighed in on the feud Monday, saying it was time for Bill Clinton to watch his words.

Bill Clinton has delivered full-throated attacks on Obama in recent days, accusing him of overstating his opposition to the war in Ircomplaining about Obama's union supporters in the Nevada caucuses last weekend and blasting his relatively mild praise for Republican icon Ronald Reagan during a Las Vegas newspaper interview."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/clyburn-to-bil...

There's the NYT caveat with the hilary endorsement, too,

snip..NYT..caveat..
"As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way."
snip
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4190470