Clinton sink to new lows

[John Galt]

Hard to imagine the affection Doug/ Darrel has for this slimy couple.

Good post Hill.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 6sgoph.asp


Insults and Honor
How quickly the Clintons forget.
by Reuben F. Johnson
01/25/2008 12:00:00 AM

Kiev
There is an Asian proverb that says "sit by the river long enough and you will see the body of your enemy float by." Something like that must be going through the head of George W. Bush these days, and he probably chuckles at the charge made this week by former President Bill Clinton that Sen. Barack Obama is using the press to funnel smears against his wife, New York's junior Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

How soon the Clintons forget the despicable lows to which they themselves sank in casting aspersions on the honor of George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) in the 1992 presidential campaign.

During that campaign Clinton's artful dodging of the Vietnam draft was contrasted with the fact that Bush 41 had served his nation as a naval aviator in the WWII Pacific Theater, having been the pilot of TBM Avenger as part of VT-51 squadron aboard the San Jacinto aircraft carrier. The elder Bush flew 58 combat missions by the time he was 20, making him one of the youngest pilots in naval aviation. At about the same age Bill Clinton was writing letters about how he needed to preserve his future political viability, Lieutenant JG George H.W. Bush was dodging anti-aircraft fire in order to reach his assigned targets and drop a load of 500-pound bombs.

In a 1985 article written for Naval Aviation News one of Bush's squadron mates, Jack Guy, was interviewed and told the author "I can't say anything but good things about him. In WW II we all felt we could depend on George to do his job. We never had to say, 'Where's my wingman?' because he was always there."

This article was written three years before Bush became president and seven years before the 1992 campaign. In other words, at a time when there was little attention focused on Bush 41's war record and quite some time before the controversy about Bill Clinton's having avoided conscription gave cause for the Clinton campaign to try and denigrate Bush's own war record to divert attention from the issue of how the Arkansas Governor had stayed out of the draft.

Maybe you remember what happened next. A poison-pen trashing of Bush 41's wartime exploits appeared a month before the election in the New Republic. Did the Clinton apparatus have a hand in that? You make the call. The author was Sidney Blumenthal, then still nominally a journalist, but before long a valued Clinton retainer specializing in trashing the Clintons' critics.

Now Bill Clinton himself has assumed the hatchet man role, which is usually the purview of vice presidential candidates. But, with the family business as stake, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

The Washington Post reported today on an exchange Clinton had with CNN correspondent Jessica Yelin regarding the current war of words between his wife and Obama. "They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for. They just spin you up on this and you happily go along." As aides steered him away, he scolded: "Shame on you."

Interestingly enough, it is not just conservative commentators or Republicans who are experiencing Clinton attack mode fatigue and do not want to see a return to blaming all the world's ills on a "vast right-wing conspiracy." People in the Clintons' own party appear to be fed up and generally dismayed as well.

"That's beneath the dignity of a former president," Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy was quoted as saying in the same Post article. "He is not helping anyone, and certainly not helping the Democratic party." Having one of the senior leaders in his own party more or less tell Bill that he has become a modern-day reincarnation of Lee Atwater is like--well--if I were Bush 41 I would indulge myself and ring up the former president Clinton and remind him in a Ricardo Montalban voice of the Klingon proverb that "revenge is a dish best served cold."

Here in Kiev, the politics of personal name-calling and political mud-slinging are a bit more simple. During a recent meeting of the Ukrainian National Security Council (RNBO), Interior Minister Yuri Lyutsenko and the mayor of Kiev, Leonid Chernovetskiy, got into a heated argument that was carried out into the corridor outside the council chambers where it turned into a fist-throwing free-for-all--each one claiming that he had to resort to blows to restore his sense of manly honor.

The two are aligned with different political parties, Lyutsenko being part of President Viktor Yushchenko's Orange Revolution Nasha Ukraina and the Kiev mayor being more or less aligned with the Party of the Regions of pro-Russian former PM Viktor Yanukovich. Personal, as well as political, animosities are at work here.

I would never suggest that the publicly disgraceful behavior of politicians here in Kiev--or of the flamboyant and inflammatory Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Moscow--are appropriate for the U.S. political arena. However, if those doing the slandering in the United States were--every once in awhile--given the invitation "you wanna take this outside," maybe some of this pathetic mud-slinging and whinging might be minimized.

All of which has me asking the same question about the politicians in both countries. Given the enormous problems the world faces, just when and where are we going to see some adult supervision?

[Dardedar]

DAR
I read the post. I didn't learn anything. What's the point? The article is completely VAPID.

Here is a mental exercise for you. Reference the "new low" you are supposedly talking about. Cite an example. Be specific. You are not even making any sense.

Again I have to ask, is this the best you dimwits have? Clinton was a meanie to Papa Bush in an election 16 years ago? Oh my.

Here's Papa Bush sobbing because he knows his drunk moronic son has completely destroyed his families legacy and their name:



D.
----------------------------
"It was an amazing run. They won the presidency by losing an election. They bankrupted the treasury, trashed the environment, turned the nation's system of justice over to religious fanatics and, finally, deceived the nation into an unprovoked war. They probably would have gotten away with that too, except they forgot to make any sensible plans about how to run the place afterward. ("Dude, where's my 'coalition'?") In the ensuing chaos and guerrilla warfare against the vulnerable and undermanned US forces, well, somebody was bound to start asking questions.
Why did we invade Iraq again? Was it because they were "reconstituting" nuclear weapons? Nope, they made that one up. Was it because they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. Was it because they were in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Sorry, ix-nay on the evidence-nay. Did we do it to further the cause of democracy and human rights? Stop, you're hurting my tummy.
Yet every one of these bogus justifications was trumpeted in the mainstream media during the run-up to the war. The Administration exploited its sympathetic interlocutors so effectively that it actually increased people's ignorance. For instance, a January poll found that 44 percent of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17 percent of those polled were aware that none of them were. The answer shocked pollsters, as almost nobody had given the answer "Iraqi" in the aftermath of the attack. Moreover, a full 41 percent of those questioned believed that Iraq had already obtained the nuclear weapons the Administration claimed it was pursuing."

–The Nation

[Doug]

Again I have to ask, is this the best you dimwits have? Clinton was a meanie to Papa Bush in an election 16 years ago? Oh my.

DOUG
Yes, the conservatives KNOW that they are going to lose the White House AND lose a huge number of seats in both houses. Republicans are dropping like flies as they announce their resignations right and left.

The GOP is bent over and they see the big foot coming months away. It's knowing that it's coming and that it's going to hurt so bad that drives them so crazy that they make ridiculous posts like this one from Galt. It's desperation--and the sinking realization that all the bad the Democrats had been saying about Bush is know common knowledge. Disgust with W is not just for liberals anymore.

The foot is coming, Galt, and there's no pillow...

[Dardedar]

DAR
How funny. I realized I read the stupid article Galt posted but still didn't find any meat. I am still at a loss as to what the basis of this charge supporting the claim: "Clinton sink[sic] to new lows." Now if you are going to take the time to post an article, with that title, you would think you would take the time to read it, understand it, and make sure that the article at least has something supporting the claim "Clinton sink[sic] to new lows."

Ah, but this is an article from the conservative Weakly Standard. They have different standards there. So I read the article again looking for something, anything to support Galt's claim (knowing he is probably too lazy to even try). Surely Clinton must have said something really bad. Something inappropriate. After all, the whole basis of this article and thread is that Clinton was a meanie to Papa Bush in an election 16 years ago.

Oooh, I think I found it. Here is what they have on Clinton. Check it out:

"A poison-pen trashing of Bush 41's wartime exploits appeared a month before the election in the New Republic. Did the Clinton apparatus have a hand in that? You make the call."

This is what qualifies as hard hitting journalism in conservative-land these days. When you actually read this puff piece and unpack it you find the entire basis turns out to be a passing reference to an article written by Sidney Blumenthal, sixteen years ago, supposedly (not a drop of supporting evidence provided) against papa Bush. Imagine that. And before an election even! Imagine this happening in America. Someone writing an article against a candidate! And this is somehow Bill Clinton's fault? This is sinking to a new low? This is the best you have?

So glad you are here Galt. Bring some friends. I am so looking forward to getting roasted like a marshmellow.

D.
-------------------------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith, economist and author

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm not sure, but I think Galt is referring to the media-reported smears (comments mostly taken out of context on both sides) from Obama's camp towards Hillary that had Bill reacting the way Harry Truman did to the reviewer who dissed Bess' performance - Harry threatened to punch the reviewer's nose and Bill is reacting with the same attitude, though not (thankfully) the actual threat. It's rather amusing. While Bill was running, he apparently figured that attacks on Hillary were just ways to get at him (even though, since she was part of the group researching and writing the articles of impeachment on Nixon the RWs have been after her longer than they've been after him), so he handled them diplomatically. Now that she is running and he realizes the attacks actually ARE on her, he's pissed and not reacting diplomatically at all.

If that isn't what Galt is referring to, then, like the rest of you, I don't see anything - there's really no "there" there.

[Betsy]

Hey Galt, how about ever just posting an original essay of your own instead of always printing articles you want us to read?

At least summarize the article and give us your well-thought-out opinion/analysis of it to comment on.

Don't just keep slapping articles on the forum and demand we read them. That's really not contributing anything worthwhile to the forum.

[Doug]

Hey Galt, how about ever just posting an original essay of your own instead of always printing articles you want us to read?

DOUG
It appears that Galt doesn't want to read his own articles. Maybe they are too difficult for him. Some of them have big words. So he posts them here and waits for us to summarize them for him.

I can't imagine any other reason Galt keeps getting articles that refute or are ambivalent to HIS position and posting them here as if they support him. Unless he's just really stupid or he's a raging masochist.

[LaWood]

Who do you think Galt may actually be?


hint:


Recall NWA Politics? He would be stupid enough to cop such an obvious name.

[Doug]

He would be stupid enough to cop such an obvious name.

DOUG
Stupid was rampant on that list of conservative morons. That doesn't narrow it down for me, I'm afraid.

(I recall that there, as here, the conservatives lost 100% of the arguments.)

[Dardedar]

DAR
Hmmm... I don't remember LV ever babbling about Rand. LV was more wordy too. Rabid hate level is about the same.
Either way the result is the same. They post, we roast.

D.

[Betsy]

No, Galt can't be LV Ash; otherwise, he'd have bragged about his world travels, his multiple PhDs, his work as a detective, and his insults would have been much nastier and even more ill-placed.

NOW, since the subject line of this thread is about Clinton, what's with her declaring a big victory in Florida last night? The democratic candidates all agreed that since the election amounted to no delegates, that they wouldn't campaign there. Then she breaks that agreement, and then tries to make a big show of her "tremendous victory" in Florida. I understand wanting to put a good spin on it, and I probably would too, but she went WAY over the top on that one.

She and Bill are losing my respect, which is really sad because I've always loved and respected them - I think he is tarnishing his presidential legacy by slinging half-truths and lies, they're both attacking Obama for the same things Bill was attacked for at his first presidential run which is pretty hypocritical, and now it seems everything done in the Clinton campaign is just contrived for the sake of spin. Really disappointing and I hope they stop it and turn their campaign around to one of a higher ethical standard that restores some dignity to the Clintons.

And I know what Galt will say, haha what dignity. The dignity of being one of the best presidents we've ever had, whether people like Galt want to admit it or not.

Here's a couple of references that better explain what I'm talking about:

http://www.ndnblog.org/node/1839

linky

Edited by Savonarola 20080130 1903: linky snippage

[Dardedar]

...what's with her declaring a big victory in Florida last night? The democratic candidates all agreed that since the election amounted to no delegates, that they wouldn't campaign there.

DAR
Well I don't know. I could go either way on this one. It's a rained out game, a game that didn't count. There really wasn't a battle there. Yet, 1.68 million demos were energized enough to come out for a vote that didn't count! That's incredible. Repubs had a real battle that did count and they got 1.91 million.
Hillary clearly creamed the competition in this most important state. So why shouldn't she go there and have a victory party? The part that breaks the agreement is campaigning. Did she run ads? Really campaign? Or go to a bowling alley and collect some endorsements. Pretty minor.

Then she breaks that agreement, and then tries to make a big show of her "tremendous victory" in Florida.

DAR
If Obama or Edwards creamed the competition I wouldn't mind them doing the very same thing. Doesn't count, that's the rules, but have your pep rally. American's love pep rallys.

I think he is tarnishing his presidential legacy by slinging half-truths and lies,...

DAR
Now I have heard this over and over and what I don't hear are the actual quotes. What the media is hyping is actually so pathetic that Jon Stewart played it the other night as a joke including what Bill said. I can probably find you the clip. Really, what is going on in this primary is actually quite mild and these slights will be quickly forgotten.

Some are in a flap about what he said about Jesse Jackson. Here it is:

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama.

Oh my god, Obama's black? When I heard the quote I just yawned. And it's 100% true. And he threw in a compliment too. These guys run their yaps all day long. Sometimes something some people think is slightly inappropriate is going to come out.

Imagine if we had a "youth state", a state with a lot of youth that voted. And the young guy in the election did really well there. Would it be inappropriate, as a dig, in response to an insulting question, to point out that some other young guy who ran there in the 80's won too? Now it's not fair because, Obama is no Jessie Jackson. But sometimes when you are making an insult, you are not always fair. That's politics.

People like to pretend that race and religion don't matter but then the news talk all day knowing full well they do. They talk about the gender vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the youth vote. Here's the reality they usually avoid: The evangelicals aren't going to come out big for the Mormon. The Hispanic's are not going to support the black guy. Pat Buchanan tries to point this out but he has to be careful because people already think he is a bigot. Sometimes bigots speak the truth.

Half-truths? That's as close as it gets for politicians or anyone with an agenda in a really important contest. Do you have a specific example of a "lie?"

D.

[Betsy]

The thing about the Jesse Jackson quote was that it was all SPIN built on half-truths. First of all, Bill could have made the same point by saying that John Edwards won South Carolina last time, and didn't win the nomination. But he chose to skip over that and go all the way back to the 1980s and compare Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Second, even though Jackson is black, he was a different kind of black candidate and I don't have to explain that. We all know the difference.

Third, in the 1980's, SC didn't have a primary, they had a caucus - at which less than 1000 people participated. It was quite a different kind of victory than Barack Obama's. So, the spin comes from making a perception out of something that was apples compared to oranges.

So Bill clearly was trying to make Obama look like Jesse Jackson - a non-viable black candidate. That's not cool because it's not the truth.

[Dardedar]

Bill could have made the same point by saying that John Edwards won South Carolina last time, and didn't win the nomination.

DAR
But that wouldn't make any sense. I don't think you can extract the blackness from Obama's campaign (and is definitely a reason why I would be pleased to support him if he wins). Clinton was reaching for a way to denigrate, weaken, take the weight out of Obama's win in SC. The most direct and hard hitting way to do that was to make the link to JJ's state win and the ultimate insignificance of that win. Is it completely 100% fair? Probably not, and for the reasons you point out. Is always being completely fair going to win against the republican game in the fall? No. When the swiftboat liars came after Kerry he sat back and didn't respond. A big part of this test is to see who is up to playing the toughest game. This is T ball. The fall will be the World Series.
I would say that considering the heat he has gotten for this it certainly was a boo.

Bill clearly was trying to make Obama look like Jesse Jackson - a non-viable black candidate.

DAR
I am sure Jesse Jackson (who I also like, I saw him at the U of A years ago) and a lot of people think/thought he was (even is) a viable black candidate. But ultimately he was a big loser in the presidential field. That's what you try to do in an election. Make your opponent a loser.

If Obama wins I think he will do a very good job. His weakness will be the perception of inexperience and the risk of Bush pulling some international stunt that could make the populace pull to McCain at the last minute. I think we will know in a week and I think Hillary will win and I think she will be a tougher opponent for the last white guy standing on the GOP side (72 year old, fuzzy headed, unpopular with the base, McCain).

D.

[Dardedar]

Jessie Jackson chimes in on this:

"I don’t read anything negative into Clinton’s observation. Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."

Link

[Betsy]

If Bill was just trying to say that the SC primary doesn't amount to anything, he could have easily (and it would have been a more true comparison, considering the differences in the types of elections they were) used John Edwards' win to express that. It would have made total sense.

If Bill was trying to pooh-pooh Obama's win as a show of just the black folks voting for the "Jesse Jackson" -- a non-viable black candidate, come on, be honest -- then he would compare him to Jesse Jackson's win. Not really comparable considering the differences in the types of elections, which makes Bill's real purpose all the more obvious.

Seems clear as a bell, to me. Glaringly obvious.

[Dardedar]

Not really comparable considering the differences in the types of elections, which makes Bill's real purpose all the more obvious.

DAR
I agree it was obvious (and he got in big trouble for it for some reason). He was trying to lower the value of Obama's win in SC. That his, and Hillary's campaign's, job. His statement was completely true, and polite enough I thought, but it didn't include all of the background information, caveats and footnotes you have provided which weaken his claim. Just imagine if politicians and talking heads started including all of the background information and caveats that might take some of the spin off of their comments. This seems like a real double standard. We hear Bush and pundits say things all the time that if the caveats were included their claims would be actually falsified! (would you like a 100 examples?) But Bill says this little snippity response to an insulting question ("does it take two of you to beat Obama" as if he shouldn't be able to campaign for his spouse like all the rest do) and people flip out (not you) because he didn't take time to delineate a bunch of background info.

I agree with Bartcop's comment. After giving the Jessie Jackson quote in defense of Bill I gave above he tagged it with:

"Jessy Jackson, asking "What the fuck?" when the Black community went bat-shit crazy when Clinton dared to mention his name in Carolina,"

D.

[Betsy]

You have a good point - My guess as to why he got in big trouble for it was that it was a snippy whiny comment coming from NOT a candidate, but an ex-president, so it was really unbecoming. Especially from an ex-president who is so admired, at least by the Democrats. He has backed off though and is acting in a manner more appropriate for his stature and his position as the spouse of a candidate -- not the candidate.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Betsy - 2 things - 1) Bill was reacting to Hillary getting slammed by a Dem - it put him off his normal game. Not to say he wouldn't have said something to try and diminish Obama's win, he would of course, that's the name of the game, but he'd have been a bit more adroit about it & 2) Hillary didn't campaign in FL. She did stop in for a fundraiser, but so did Obama. The biggy that people are screaming about with Hillary is that she's said she thinks the 2 states who are being "punished" for DNC disobedience should be allowed to seat their delegates. Since she didn't force the DNC to not punish those states (MSM has the "Hillary=DNC" meme out, too) it's supposed to be hypocrasy. Of course, she kept her name on the ballot, but that's supposed to prove she's greedy and power mad, not that she thinks that everyone should have their vote count.