Here's the link to the entire video clip (CNN):
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/23/bill.clinton.yellin.cnn
Bill Clinton was amazingly calm for being called Lee Atwater who was one of the worst bigots of recent political history. He totally smacked down the press' need to invent stories and Obama for exploiting it. Seriously, watch it.
Posted by Nathan at January 24, 2008 04:14 AMOh, but I thought this wasn't a pro-Hillary/anti-Obama site?
You guys are being played for fools.
Posted by at January 24, 2008 04:47 AMThe civil rights community is very upset with Lewis and Young, in fact, particularly SNCC veterans are mad at John Lewis. Apparently, Lewis is angling for a spot in a Clinton White House and made his endorsement way back when when Hillary was supposedly "inevitable." Now that Obama is viable, he is in a spot.
As for Andrew Young, everyone knows he sold out the movement for profit a long time ago. Do a basic google search for details. One os his latest efforts was to be a shill for Walmart!
So, again, the Clintons are purposefully distorting civil rights for their own gain.
Posted by at January 24, 2008 04:50 AMAnon, if you believe in your own words, then why not put your name to them?
Posted by Judith at January 24, 2008 05:39 AMObama is going down in flames.
The only question is whether he can ruin Hillary's chances while he flails about.
We agree that Obama is going down, but disagree as to why that is. I believe he is going down mainly because the Clintons have been very effective, post-Iowa, in slowly re-branding Obama a "black candidate," rather than the race transcendent candidate he had tried to brand himself as. Unfortunately, they have succeeded and the party has broken down along race, gender, class and ethnicity lines. Good for Hillary and Bill, bad for the party. Very cynical and very sad.
But, you all are getting what you wish for in Hillary, so we will see how that works out. Congrats. The Clintons have proven again that the negative stuff works every time...
Brian,
There is no one here, that I'm aware, of who has a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton who has said they will not support Barack Obama should he get the nomination. Whereas there are plenty of voices in support of Obama and Edwards who have said they will not support Clinton should she be the nominee.
So who is it exactly that's dividing the Democratic Party?
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 06:11 AMsnark, I think the anon guy is Patrick again - you know, the guy who claims to be a professor of women's history, but turned out to be a right wing tool? The one who tried to post under my name and was handed his ass. Yeah, that's the guy - the one now trying to push more lies about the Clintons being the divisive ones. I wish more parents would monitor their kids' internet use.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 07:32 AMAnon,
Examples please. And show that Obama has not done the same, if not worse.
Mind you, having a supporter flat out call Bill Clinton Lee Atwater is most repugnant. And Obama is the one who keeps insisting that the Clintons were the ones to interject race in order to victimize him. If that were true, Obama never would've sent out Jesse Jackson, Jr. the day after NH and would certainly never tolerate this latest example.
Again, everyone should check out that CNN video I listed earlier at the top. It's great.
Posted by Nathan at January 24, 2008 07:52 AM""That's beneath the dignity of a former president," Leahy told reporters, adding: "He is not helping anyone, and certainly not helping the Democratic Party."
That concern was also voiced by some neutral Democrats, who said that the former president's aggressive role, along with the couple's harsh approach recently, threatens to divide the party in the general election." WashPost
Posted by peter at January 24, 2008 07:59 AMPerhaps Obama is going down and so is the chances of Democratic party to put a Democrat in the Whitehouse. I think Obama supporters will sit out this election and McCain will easily get in. Hillary may win the nomination but the cost of it will be tremendous. Why Howard Dean is not putting stop to the bickering is beyound me. So we got 4 more years of Bush policies coming up. What a shame that Democrats always manage to lose by thier own actions.
Posted by suresh at January 24, 2008 08:11 AM" Isn't Hillary allowed to have a supportive spouse too?"
Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.
The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience -- namely, Bill -- to lend a hand.
But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
Like all the other right wing tools, petey's really hoping for the Clintons back - without the Clenis(tm) he'd have to actually talk about what a failure the Republicans have been.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 08:51 AMSnark, Coyote is right. That ain't me. I had not said anything in this thread until now. However, I will answer anyway, since you, Snark, asked:
There is no one here, that I'm aware, of who has a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton who has said they will not support Barack Obama should he get the nomination. Whereas there are plenty of voices in support of Obama and Edwards who have said they will not support Clinton should she be the nominee.
So who is it exactly that's dividing the Democratic Party?Snark, that would be Hillary and the Clintons who are dividing the party, just as you yourself point out, in your own comment. The logic is right there and it is unassailable.
Hillary supporters would vote for Obama in a general election, because he is, just as they all say, a UNITER. He will get the Hillary supporters were he to win the nomination because he unites people together. You, Snark, admit this yourself, that Hillary supporters would vote for Obama. This is because Obama UNITES people.
And you're right, there's Obama and Edwards supporters who won't for Hillary, because she is a DIVIDER. Hillary DIVIDES people, that's why they're not going to vote for her.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 24, 2008 08:57 AMBrian,
Does your brain hurt after that tortured attempt at logic?
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 09:03 AMActually, Snark, my logic is right on the money.
See, you seem to believe there's this "fair" judgment somewhere out there by some portion of the voting left, where the "facts" will sway what they think. You write like you think that since Hillary or Bill are perceived as dividing the party, that some facts -- facts which I haven't seen, by the way -- will show otherwise, some facts will show they aren't dividing the party. And lo, the Clintons will no longer be perceived as the Dividers!
But, guess what? That's not the way it's working. There's been no facts demonstrating the Clintons haven't taken the low road, if anything, quite the contrary. On top of which, even if there were, it doesn't matter. Hence, why my answer to your question is the correct one.
Some Edwards and Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary, and as a result she is the DIVIDER. If she were a uniter, they would vote for her.
You write like you think the uniter or divider thing comes first, and then the people base their vote on that. No, that's not how it works.
The way it works is people don't like her or the way the campaign is being run, and then they don't vote for her. The "divider" is a RESULT as well as a cause of who they perceive her to be and who they end up voting for.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 24, 2008 09:29 AMsnark, I don't know if it's hurting Brian's brain, but after that hilarious rationalization, my brain's aching a bit. 'Course it's from laughing, but same difference...
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 10:07 AMReading Brian's argument, it seems to me that Hillary supporters use the logical part of their brain and Obama supports use the emotional part of their brain.
Hillary supporters like the fact that she is smart, knows her stuff, and sees the big picture, but also knows the details like the back of her hand. Being logical people, they will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination because that's way better than any republican. They might even support Obama outright if he would give more detail about his policies are explain (or show by examples) how he can bring people together (while not selling out democratic values.)
Obama supporters like that fact that he is inspirational, that he can say the right things and make everyone feel good and hopeful. They are confident that others will react the same way to him, thus allowing him to change the tone, bridge the gap, bring people together. Everyone loves a feel good candidate. But being emotional people, if he doesn't get the nomination, they won't support Hillary who makes them feel bad because everything she does is bad.
Just two different ways of being I guess. I tend toward the logical and my logical brain is trying to figure out if Obama's emotional draw is enough to really unite people and if we can afford the fact that he'll be making mistakes Clinton already learned from at least 10 years ago.
Posted by CG at January 24, 2008 10:15 AMThe people who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, should she be the nominee of the Democratic Party are the ones dividing the party.
People like you Brian.
You are the dividers.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 10:29 AMSigh. You still don't get it, Snark, do you? Now, you're down to blaming me personally and others for Hillary's lack of appeal, for her "divider" status? Yeah, okay -- I and others just like me are telling all those people on DKos and elsewhere to not vote for Hillary. I'm the one making them angry and dividing them. LOL! Not!
Look, if during the general election large portions of the African-American community and us left-wingers withhold our votes from her, do you really think the judgment will be that the voters or Obama were the dividers? That it's our fault? Hell, no. When and if that happens, she will be remembered as the divider. As I said, it's a RESULT as well as a cause.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 24, 2008 10:58 AMdo you really think the judgment will be that the voters or Obama were the dividers?
Yep. But really, if McCain wins, do you think anyone's going to really give a shit about the Divider/Uniter divide? What's really funny is that everytime an Obaman says he's a Uniter, people get a picture of Bush in their heads. How incredibly stupid was that choice of campaign slogan?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 11:09 AMLook, if during the general election large portions of the African-American community and us left-wingers withhold our votes from her...
Because you're dividers who'd rather see a Republican in the White House than stand united behind your party's nominee.
...do you really think the judgment will be that the voters or Obama were the dividers?
I could give a rats ass about what the judgement is. All the Democrats who let their petty grudges against the Clintons prevent them from voting for the Democratic nominee will ACTUALLY BE THE DIVIDERS. Who the puditocracy declares to be the divider is meaningless. Like most everything else they say.
And when Barack Obama, contender for the Democratic nomination for president uses his national stage to stand up and say 'we'll see if my supporters will vote for her' instead of saying 'we all need to vote for the Party's nominee', HE'S A DIVIDER TOO.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 11:12 AMI am voting for John Edwards.
Posted by Troubled American at January 24, 2008 11:50 AMThat's right. Elect Clinton as your nominee. And lose. Again. Why do you keep supporting and picking candidates that the rest of the country won't support.
Because if you aren't going to reach out to unaffiliated voters, you will lose. That would be the best thing to happen, since it might finally bury assholes like you so we can move on from the crisis in leadership the baby-boomers have brought us.
The country needs to heal. And I will, as a left leaning independent, vote Republican rather than have another Clinton in office and hit the rewind button for 16 years. We've already got that in the Republican party.
Way to go Bill! You're turning vast segments of the voting public against the Democrats.
You people really have turned into little Lee Atwaters.
What's really funny is that everytime an Obaman says he's a Uniter, people get a picture of Bush in their heads.
So true, but no one says it because no one wants to compare Obama to Bush. But really, Bush was supposedly a uniter who was going to bring dignity back to the office of the President and work across the aisle like he did in Texass. Yeah, that worked real well. It's so dignified to lie us into a war and allow torture.
Meanwhile, one of my senators voted to kill the FISA bill that didn't have immunity. Guess my phone call didn't work. Someone really needs to challenge her next time she's up for re-election. This isn't the first time I've been unhappy with her vote. I'm not sure how my other senator voted.
Posted by CG at January 24, 2008 12:18 PMA lovely appeal to unity anon.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 12:33 PMYou people really have turned into little Lee Atwaters.
Ah! The politics of HOPE! Gives you the warm fuzzies, dunnit?
I think both clinton and obama would lose to mccain in the general. obama's supporters are not loyalist, which may be good or bad. I've been a democrat all my life and I'd like to see them support whoever is the dem candidate (I'm hoping for Edwards!)
Posted by JEN at January 24, 2008 01:11 PMas a strong Obama supporter let me just reassure everyone that I will vote for Mrs. Clinton if she gets the nomination.
I think all the Clinton fans here need to clearly understand a big concern from the non Hillary camp. It's not that she wouldn't be a good leader, she probably would.
My great concern is that if Hillary is our "guy"
then I think it is highly likely that we win but just barely or that we could loose. For the right wing she is their Newt. They hate her with a passion. The one and only one way to fire up the right and get most of them to turn out is to nominate her and most of you know it.
We cant afford to barely win this one. We have to crush this wing of the republican party because their actions have so damaged the country over the last 7 years.
Obama as our "guy" would be a landslide. He inspires people and not only would a lot of repubs stay home, some of them and many independents would vote with us.
And the other reason that I don't want Mrs. Clinton is something that has bothered all of us.
She voted for this war. She knew better and she still did it . Why? Because of politics and we all know it. The most important decision any person ever votes on and she blew it. At least the Repubs that voted for it were true believers. Think about that for a minute.
Eric in Austin
Posted by eric l at January 24, 2008 02:00 PMMy great concern is that if Hillary is our "guy" then I think it is highly likely that we win but just barely or that we could loose.
Obama as our "guy" would be a landslide.
This is completely unsupported by most national polling which shows Obama and Clinton often statistically even in head to head matchups with the different Republican candidates. Many with Clinton having an advantage over Obama.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 02:09 PMPolls drift with the wind. Her negs are atrocious and I think most would agree that She is the one most of the in the know Repubs want to run against.
We have to carry the presidency and many Sen. and I don't think she is the one to do that.
She also greatly dampens the Iraq war that we could use to beat the other side to death with. Hell its hard to see much difference between her and McCain in that respect.
Posted by eric l at January 24, 2008 02:38 PMeric,
Obama's negatives are currently one point higher than Clinton according to Rasmussen. His negatives are quite high throughout all polls--and the GOP hasn't even touched him yet. Hell, the press has given him a pass. You're wrong.
Posted by Nathan at January 24, 2008 04:04 PM"The people who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, should she be the nominee of the Democratic Party are the ones dividing the party.
You know, this is true. No, I'm serious.
How dare we Progressives, who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, come into YOUR Corporate-funded, Identity-Politics-driven, machine and attempt to DIVIDE YOUR party. Please note that Mr. Obama is part of that machine, whether any of you know it or not.
I say, Snark, you are absolutely correct. The national Democratic Party ensured that EVERY Democrat in my State of Florida would NOT be allowed any input into who the nominee of YOUR party should be...that definitely doesn't sound like MY party anyway.
Come to think of it, it never has. Not in all of the years I've spent standing out in the wilderness, shouting up at the clouds...errr..Corporate Jets and F-16's headed out to 'FREE THE SH*T' out of impoverished people all over the world!!
Posted by Tampa Student at January 24, 2008 04:38 PMRight on, Tampa Student! And you know, you are right.
Obama is practically as corporatist as Hillary. Hell, the history of the Cook County Machine is atrocious. It was only 40 years ago when that machine was LITERALLY beating our progressive forefathers in the streets, literally clubbing and gassing them (Chicago '68), little different than the Soviets in Prague. I just have a somewhat justified hope that Obama is more Harold Washington than Richard Daley.
Anyway, right on, Tampa, right on.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 24, 2008 04:59 PMHow dare we Progressives, who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, come into YOUR Corporate-funded, Identity-Politics-driven, machine and attempt to DIVIDE YOUR party.
It's not MY party.
I'm not even a registered Democrat.
Think what you will of the Democratic Party. I'm not overjoyed with them either. I just call it like I see it. There's gonna be an election in 9 months and either the Republican or the Democratic nominee is gonna be elected the next president. Them's the facts. Like it or not. So you can have a Republican. Or a Democrat. Personally I think we're better off with a Democrat.
The question was, who's dividing the Democratic Party? And in this election cycle it's Democrats who insist that hey will not vote for Clinton should she be the nominee. But hey, it's YOUR VOTE. Do with it as you please.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 06:43 PMGee, snark, the least you could do is let them finish putting up their strawman before you knock it down. Not very sporting of you. *smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 06:59 PMTell me, would it be a Strawman argument to hold Hillary accountable for her 2003 Iraq War Resolution 'aye', or the several subsequent funding 'aye's'?
All the carpet-bombing, depleted uranium shelling, civilian casualties, waterboarding, hunger, and maiming that went on as a direct result of her voting record....are those all strawmen too?
Why is it okay that all of that happened in Iraq? What if it had happened here? Ok, there's the strawman. Hillary would never have voted for that to have happened HERE. But in Iraq, it was just a mistake and we should write off all her support for it as a necessary compromise.
She had a direct hand in starting and perpetuating that Neocon wet dream. Maybe you are willing to forgive that, I'm not.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 24, 2008 07:38 PMWhy is it okay that all of that happened in Iraq?
It's not ok.
Will you be happier if John McCain is the next president? Will that make it all better?
You're willfully missing the point.
The establishment machine parked three Pro-Iraq war candidates on the stage, fixed the primary, and told me to happily vote DLC in the General Election. Deluding myself by calling that Democracy is just as repugnant as McCain becoming President.
Hillary has already proven she's capable of starting an unprovoked offensive war, so that's not much different than what I'd expect from McCain.
She had an opportunity in 2002-03 to stand together with Gore in opposition to the war before the resolution. Bill, Hillary, and Gore standing together at a press conference denouncing military action in Iraq and explaining the lies to the American public in 2002 might have stopped this war before it started. But when the time came, she voted her conscience. THAT was her conscience.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 24, 2008 09:26 PMOk. If you don't think it makes any difference if a Republican or a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, is the next president then U can,t help that.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 04:17 AMThat should read, "then I can't help that."
Damn Blackberry keypad!
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 05:45 AMI thought it was fine the first time.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2008 05:50 AMWell I for one am a Hilary supporter that will NOT vote for Obama in the general election. UNITER? Baloney. Not after he allowed his minions to characterize the Clintons as racist.
No way.
Fine..if you believe that a Democrat winning is more important than the values of the Democrat running, then you can't help that...nor can I.
I'm sorry that my dastardly attempt to 'divide' the Democratic Party into the 'DLC Lemmings' and the 'no confidence' factions apparently failed. You could at least mix in some intellectual honesty with your fatalism and admit that Obama is as much a corporate shill as Ms. Clinton.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 25, 2008 03:46 PMYou could at least mix in some intellectual honesty with your fatalism and admit that Obama is as much a corporate shill as Ms. Clinton.
I have regularly tried to disabuse commenters here of any notion that Obama is any more Progressive than Clinton.
But perhaps that was obscured by all the righteous indignation clouding your view of the reality that this is a nation of 300 million people who don't all see it exactly your way. You can call it fatalism if you'd like. I call it reality.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 06:53 PMFatalism, as in your view that we should accept voting for candidates chosen for us by a select few through a non-democratic (small d) process simply because the alternative will be worse...
But now you're saying -- implying -- that 300 million people disagree with my viewpoint, implying a valid democratic (small d) process (and the consent of the governed), resulting in having Hillary as the nominee.
Those are two completely different premises.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 25, 2008 09:13 PM