Crucifying the Clintons

In case you didn't notice, Jimmy Carter's presidency was a total failure. His advocacy for human rights and his concerns about the environment and our dependence on foreign oil were evidence of his being a wimp. We now need to bomb Iran, all because of his catastrophic leadership. Did I mention that forging peace between Egypt and Israel only proved his anti-semitism?

These "facts" are well enough established that we can now destroy the Clinton Presidency. It was all about his failed marriage and that blow job he forced us to focus on - God knows we do not want to go back to that. A complete turn-around in the country's economy was just random.There were no accomplishments in Bosnia. Our stature in the world was far lower than it is now. The President, and his wife, were not only anti-Semites; they were also racists.

He knows his Presidency was marred terribly by the impeachment, and that his record of accomplishment was much less than he hoped it would be (TPM)

Obama struck precisely the right note in his victory speech, skewering the Clintons without naming them. (Joke Line)

It's great that Obama skewered the Clintons - all the easier for us to devour our own.

I don't know who I'll vote for in my state's primary, but I am a Democrat, and I despise our self-destructive urges. Senator Clinton's mention of the role of a President in passing civil rights legislation was factually correct. It seems to me that Bill Clinton's reference to Jesse Jackson's victories in South Carolina was an attempted reminder that African Americans tend to vote for African Americans. ( NewsFlash: Jewish people like to vote for Jews; Italian Americans proportionately gave much more money to Giuliani than to other candidates. By the way, Protestant White Males really, really like Protestant White Males)

It's grossly unfair to characterize such behavior as

"the completely unprincipled use of race-baiting language by the former President" (link)

"A mass, unspoken decision had been made that Bill and Hillary Clinton had behaved unjustly toward Barack Obama" (link)

or Kevin Drum, who  "doesn't like dog whistle racial appeals"

Many of these writers make reference to the "Clinton Machine." As of the end of the third quarter Obama had spent 44 million, Clinton 40.  If she got a machine for her money, and he got a tricycle, we have to put her in charge of the economy.

Painting Obama as being a victim of bullies belittles him. Agreeing to a republican narrative of Bill Clinton's presidency can only make a democratic victory in November less likely.

(memeorandum)

 

Comments

[farmer mark]

You are right to skewer the critics for their over the top characterization of what the Clintons are doing. But it's also right to skewer the Clintons for the tone they've taken in this campaign, which has provoked the semi-hysterical reaction of the Obama defenders.

The Clintons could simply remind us that Barack is barely out of the Illinois legislature, largely untested on national matters and that his positions are a little timid in areas like health care and the economy, without trying to tar him with the slumlord stuff, with the false accusation of being a Reagan admirer, and with the absurd charge of injecting race into the campaign. We have two incredibly strong candidates and they should be running on their real strengths and criticized for their real weaknesses. Then I can decide if I want an inspiring president or a super-diligant one -- there are strong arguments for both types right now.

This campaign could be taking place on a much higher plane. Unfortunately, I think the Clintons are far more responsible than Obama for lowering it. Counterproductive for Hillary, I'd say. The slumlord charge gave Barack the opportunity to point out that while he worked as a community organizer out of law school she in contrast worked at a piggy corporate law firm and sat on Wal-Mart's board. The evidence of personal integrity gives him an edge in my book that is now hard to shake. If she hadn't gone down this road I think I would have been far less likely to make relative personal integrity a prominent factor in comparing them.

[farmer mark]

PS: I know I misspelled "diligent". It was a typo, not a "potatoe" moment, even if the Clintonistas might be tempted to use it that way in order to discount my comments.