Is the right right on the Clintons?

[cali]

Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.
January 26, 2008


Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.

This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

[wyldwolf]

1. Only when it's convenient for the 'left.'

[bigtree]

15. you got that right

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons

Who's this we?

Oh, it's an Obama campaign piece!

[Blarch]

4. I know plenty of people

who are disgusted with the way the Clintons are behaving.

[wyldwolf]

5. I know plenty of people

who are not.

[Bread and Circus]

21. and I know of no one who actually likes Clinton and the only 2

people that I know who want her to win are voting for her in their words "because she's a woman".

[wyldwolf]

27. and everyone I know likes Clinton

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. Other robe wearing members of the role playing community?

[FreakinDJ]

3. been hearing it on Air America for a long time now

seems there are some negatives

[ruggerson]

7. "The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters"

No need for further analysis.

[Bread and Circus]

22. Well, guess what would happen if Edwards were the closest challenger

to Clinton...

She's smear him too and then the Edwards supporters would see how it feels.

[OHdem10]

8. Since I am a Liberal, which Liberals are you discussing??

I see the Establishment destroying the Democratic Party
and setting the country up for GOP rule for 50 years

If anyone believes the GOP cannot win this election
you are talking to too many people just like yourself.

In the 60s white Democrats farily or unfairly felt abandoned
by the party. Their expression" I did not leave the Democratic
Party left me" .The Media and Some Establishment have managed
to bring these same feelings to the forefront. Politcally
tone deaf they are.

[EV_Ares]

9. You are right about what they are saying on your list. Of course I am more

to the left than a lot but I am talking about co-workers and who vote democratic and are trying to make a choice for the democratic candidate. Mine has always been Edwards, Kucinich or Barack. I think any of these candidates would be a positive over Hillary. Of course Dennis is out and doesn't look like John will be the choice although is still hanging in there. All of these people are looking past Hillary now as they compare her politics to the GWB scorch the earth or whatever it takes to win, even if that means doing it to another party member.

I think she has hurt herself and she is reinforcing the belief of her being very divisive. What I hear from most people also is they desperately want someone who will go to DC and fix things(not in the same old Washington way -- they want change) and work on bringing this country together. People are tired of being divided & Hillary is not the one to bring change to DC in most peoples eyes.

[OHdem10]

14. I thin we shoud remember it was Bill Clinton who coule bridge

the White and Black Gap. I support Edward, but to
people watching on TV--not having the insider information
as Duers---often see Barak being shoved down their
throats. When Democratic Party is seen as pushing
race, Americans get uncomfortable. This may not be fair
or the right thing to do. They recoil. Let's vote
for GOP--they do not constantly accuse us or their
leaders of being racist.

The Clintons were able to mend some of this. So what
do we do ---Give the the GOP a win.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

10. Perception is everything in politics

It doesn't matter what is true or untrue, only what people believe. I'm opposed to Clinton getting the nomination not so much because of any policy issues, but because of how polarizing she is. And that polarization is not even a result of anything she did, so much as the 8 years of republican smearing and lying while Bill was president.

It's an unfortunate truth, but one we have to confront when selecting our nominee.

[quickesst]

11. Yes they are....

as long as they mirror the opinions of the Clinton haters. When this is all over, they will attempt to disassociate themselves from the love affair, but the oral, and written opinions agreeing with the right will be too much evidence to counter. They will forever be associated, for a crucial period in our history, as allies of the right. Thanks.
quickesst

[bigtree]

12. considering everything these right-wing pundits do is designed to undermine our party

I don't really see any value in giving credence to ANYTHING they say or write.

[cali]

17. bwahahaha

why make an arrogant assertion without first checking if it's true? Chait is NOT right wing. duh. And you could have educated yourself so easily. Neither is Herbert who has a more scathing piece about the charming couple in today's NYT. And neither is Michael Crowley who just wrote a very in dept piece about the Clintons. If you want to remain in denial, do so, but there are PLENTY of people on the left who don't think well of the Clintons.

[ruggerson]

20. They weren't particularly fond of them before

and this is a campaign where their guy is getting beat. Bound to be some sour grapes.

[formernaderite]

23. i'm still an edwards supporter but I don't care for the clintons

i'd ahve to say it's a bit more widespread than the hillary camp would liek to think. I do like obama, and am perhaps listening a bit more keenly to him since watching him weather the clinton machine.

[bigtree]

24. In the head, you asked if the 'right' is right'. The right works to undermine our message and agenda

I think I read the headline 'right'. Why did you ask that question if you knew well that the author was from the left? It's not 'arrogance Cali. I just don't have time to play these head games of yours.

[bigtree]

29. now I see the reference in the article. My answer stands. The 'right' is corrupt

Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along?

Their 'view' or opinion, or any other utterance is almost always manipulative corporatist, fundamentalist bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

34. again, Chait is right wing when it is convenient to the left for him to be so

[Glorfindel]

13. Is it more important for Democrats to villify their fellow Democrats

than to defeat the G.O.Pukes? This shit has almost reached the point of "a plague on both your houses!"
I was an early and fervent supporter of Kucinich, and will now vote for Edwards if I get the chance (not that a primary vote in Mississippi has any real meaning). I will vote for whatever candidate the Democrats nominate, but if we lose the next presidential election, it will be OUR OWN FAULT. In that case (God forbid) I hope all the Obama and Clinton mudslingers will have a really good time gloating over the collapse of the USA and comfort themselves with the thought, "Well, at least Clinton/Obama didn't win!" :puke:

[KennedyGuy]

16. Meet the "right" Obama supporters new best friends..

[gulliver]

18. Yeah, the right is right. They thank you and Chait for the endorsement.

I take it that the charges Chait made against the Clintons are supposedly not charges that could have been made by the left too. If Chait had asked "Are critics right about the Clintons?" would it have not made as much sense?

Criticize the Clinton's all you want. But when you imply the "right is right" about them, you praise the right. Some of them think Bill Clinton had Ron Brown killed, smuggled drugs, etc. They aren't "right." We don't need Dems vouching for them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Don't Forget Stalin Instructed The Communists In Germany Not To Cooperate With The Democratic

Socialists To Provide A United Front To Hitler...

Politics makes strange bedfellows...

[BootinUp]

25. Obama supporters are upset at the Clintons?

I'm shocked, lol.

[EV_Ares]

33. as the Clintons are upset at Obama it seems. At least Bill appears to be a little angry, eom.

[still_one]

26. I am one of those liberals, and because of that I will not vote for anymore Clintons

in ANY election

[madrchsod]

28. "She and John McCain are very close.

They always laugh that if they wind up being the nominees of their parties, it would be the most civilized election in American history and probably put the voters to sleep,%22 Bill Clinton said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_el_pr/clinton
Clinton gains black endorsements in S.C. - Yahoo! News


from bill`s statement i can`tell if there is any difference between big john and hillary

[comradebillyboy]

31. you might want to compare their voting records on

health care
taxes
public education
reproductive rights
energy

McCain is a genial fellow and a personal friend of Hillary's, but McCain is a right wing conservative and you might find their political views are very different, if you cared to look.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. The wrong sentance from that Obama interview was focused on

The Republicans were driving the political agenda, and Reagan was an agent of change. If thre was anything controversial in Obama's comments, this sentance goes more to the heart of it:

"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

The only valid point to question IMO was whether Obama was giving validity to a Right Wing view that excesses from the 60's were to blame for our nations problems. Here to Obama didn't say those were his views, but he did not counter that view in his own comments, leaving it possible to speculate if he tacitly accepted that view. At the least he gave voice to that view without directly challenging it.

[gulliver]

32. It's too slippery. Obama wants it both ways.

He wants "Reagan Democrats" to hear one thing and Democrats/Progressives to hear another. He's not a straight talker. His calling the GOP the "party of ideas...in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom" is exactly the same slippery stuff. He doesn't say the ideas are good ideas, but he wants Reagan Democrats to hear one part of the sentence and Democrats/Progressives to hear the other.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. This is the valid point to consider

Is Obama or is he not playing it both ways here? Is he, to use a word frequently attached to Hillary Clinton, triangulating? Yes he can't accurately be pinned down for praising the political effects of Reagan, or the Republican world view that managed to bring Reagan to power. He did not. But you get to the heart of the issue with your comment.

Clinton overplayed her hand with her commercials because she wanted to highlight one interpretation of Obama's comments, and she did so by taking the one short sound bite out of context that did so most tellingly. She got burned for that and it is fair to burn her for it. But the larger point remains. Obama was too ambiguous to leave Clinton with a clean sound bite to use against him, so she went for "the next best thing" and it wasn't good enough.

But Obama was making noises that could be construed by many as favorable to Reagan and his political world view even if that literally is not what he said. And he was doing so at the exact same time that he was making his blatant "become a Democrat for a day" appeal to Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses to help him win the Democratic nomination.