Herbert: Questions for the Clintons

[cali]

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 26, 2008
Charleston, S.C.

Joseph P. Riley Jr. has been mayor of this historic and often tense city since the mid-1970s. He’s a Democrat, highly respected and has worked diligently to heal racial wounds that have festered in some cases for hundreds of years.

He has endorsed Barack Obama in today’s Democratic primary. But what struck me during an interview in his quiet office in an exquisitely restored City Hall was not the fact of the endorsement, but the manner in which the mayor expressed it.

He went out of his way to praise the Democratic field, including some of the candidates who have dropped out, like Senators Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd. He talked about his fondness for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said: “It’s tough when you have to choose between friends.”

The mayor’s thoughtful, respectful, generous assessment of the field echoed the tone that had prevailed until recently in the Democratic primary campaign. That welcome tone has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.

<snip>

What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. what kind of people are they?

People who will say anything to anyone. They are Mitt Romney's alter ego.

[cali]

2. It's a really good op piece

by someone I respect. I just found this comment on daily kos in a thread about this article. I think it sums up everything.

"Coyly egage in race-baiting. Get called out for race-baiting.
Indignantly deny race-baiting.
Talk about how hurtful the race-baiting charges are to you.
Lose the primary, but with a an elctorate deeply divided by race
Move on to greener pastures.
Somewhere in Hell, Lee Atwater is laughing "

[Inuca]

3. "Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?"

No.

Also: I did not know that Bob Kerrey also brought up the "secular madrassa" absurdity. Beyond appaling.

[MBS]

4. thoughtful oped piece, highly recommended

I hope lots of people read this. Bob Herbert is one of the few editorial writers for whom I have consistent respect.

[cali]

5. I think he makes things very clear in this article

it's very hard to believe that the remarks quoted were accidental.

[hfojvt]

6. it's only fair to point out

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030107.shtml

"Bob Herbert doesn’t seem to think well of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton. Here’s how he started a truly remarkable column in Monday’s New York Times:

HERBERT (2/26/07; opening paragraph): If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the stars of a reality TV show, it would be a weekly series called ''The Connivers.'' The Clintons, the most powerful of power couples, are always scheming at something, and they're good at it.
Yikes! That’s a deeply punishing assessment. Herbert takes the idea that Hillary Clinton is “calculating” and he raises it several levels. She’s “always scheming at something,” he says. And he says that she’s a “conniver.”

You’d almost think that a bigfamouspundit would want to support such remarkable statements. In the case of the useless Herbert (more below), your thinking would be quite mistaken. Indeed, Herbert goes on to insult and name-call Clinton all through the course of this startling column. By the end, here’s what he’s saying about the current Democratic front-runner:
HERBERT (final paragraphs): It's ironic that the first woman with a real shot at the presidency comes off not as a compelling underdog but as the powerful front-runner at the controls of a ruthless political machine."


Interesting to go back to March of last year and remember the Geffen incident.

Herbert blames the Clintons for the comments of Andrew Young and Bob Kerrey. Perhaps its naive to think that these things are not deliberate or co-ordinated, but is it really plausible to believe that the Clintons are giving a script to Young and Kerrey, that they are telling them what to say? I still remember Young as the loose cannon who got the Carter administration in trouble by shooting his mouth off (although I also remember reading Young's actual comments some twenty years later and wondering what the big deal was.)

I like Herbert, but Somerby shows that Herbert is quite ready to believe the worst about Clinton, without providing the evidence for his beliefs.

[tgnyc]

7. I reject the notion that the nation needs healing and unifying.

It needs repair and re-tracking, but unifying -- though the Obama folks would have you think otherwise -- is not the most pressing need right now.

[cali]

8. I don't think unifying the nation is the most important thing

and I don't worry about Obama stressing it. He's trying to get elected with a majority and a sizable coalition. That's fine by me.

[City Lights]

9. K&R.

Herbert makes some excellent points.

Bill has been over-the-top in support of Hillary, and some of their surrogates have been reprehensible.

What kind of people are the Clintons? The kind of people who will do anything to win. Unfortunately, they're starting to remind me of another prominent family whose name I shan't mention.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Bob H, Gene Robinson, Colbert King are all attacking the Clintons. Women expect...

HRC to defend herself.

[bigtree]

11. I love it when shitstirrers appeal for comity

Herbert joined in the fray with glee. Now he wants to carve out a perch of righteousness for himself and his candidate.

Herbert, 'Clintons as Connivers'
http://americantaino.blogspot.com/2007/02/bob-herbert-clintons-as-connivers.html

[KennedyGuy]

12. really now..herbie writes an anti-Clinton screed

the sun will come up tomorrow...
yawn..
I hear the freepers don't like Hillary either..