TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.01.2008
Clintonites Against Clinton

Bill Clinton's first-term Labor Secretary Bob Reich is one:

While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

Granted, Reich has been something of a Clinton critic ever since his 1997 book Locked In the Cabinet, but you do wonder how many other former Clintonites are starting to feel a bit queasy.

Update: This George Packer article quotes Reich and a number of other Clintonites getting off the bus.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:32 PM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Bukharin said:

For Reich to come out this way is Huge!

January 24, 2008 3:49 PM

Rhubarbs said:

"... you do wonder how many other former Clintonites are starting to feel a bit queasy."

I think it's safe to say: All the former Clintonites who are not hoping for a cabinet position in 2009. Those former Clintonites are surely feeling a bit queasy. The ones who hope for a cabinet appointment in 2009? They have no problem with the Clinton campaign engaging in race-baiting and dishonest attacks on fellow Republicans.

January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

ChanRobt said:

I think the Clintons are in the process of winning the nomination campaign but losing the war.  

If people want "change," the Clinton's are doing a great job of reminding them of something they had for eight plus years, back when.  If they so turn off supporters of Obama and the rest of the contentders that they stay home in November, their nomination will have been no better than Mondale's.

And, it will be easier and easier to think of Romeny or even McCain as true change rather than Clinton redux.

If I were Obama, I'd quit running against Hillary and start running against The Clintons.  Remind people over and over that, like it or not, HillBilly is a TwoFer.  

Maybe she should file for divorce next week and ban him from the campaign.  That's the only way to convince people that he won't be the troll in the basement for the next 4-8 years should they be restored to the WH.

January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Sorry, make that "... on fellow Democrats."

I guess when I think about the kind of crap the Clinton campaign is doing, I just sort of assume it's from a Republican candidate.

January 24, 2008 4:03 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"you do wonder how many other former Clintonites are starting to feel a bit queasy"

That just about nails how I feel.

It's getting harder and harder to avoid agreeing with Dick Morris that the Clinton's are deliberately injecting race into the campaign, and even exploiting it, by having BIll court afr-amer voters they know will not vote for HRC, in order to make it appear to whites who might be inclined toward BHO that afr-amers _rejected_ Hillary, hence that BHO is just another afr-amer identity politics candidate.

Disgusting.

January 24, 2008 4:43 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

if Barack cannot withstand the attacks from Bill and Hillary, which though certainly unsavory and calculated, are NOTHING compared to what the GOP will hit him with should he win the nomination.

Politics ain't for sissies.  I support Obama but I am just wondering if he is tough and wily enough to win.  If Bill and Hillary can confound him with this kind of stuff, the GOP will eat the pretty boy alive in November. Stop crying and fight back or drop out is my advice.  

tnr folks seem to think that the presidential process is a test of virtue. It ain't. It is a test of brains, smarts, resilence, and the capacity to counter effectively and ruthlessly.  It is not about crying or whining about how mean the opponents are.  That is loser talk and it is making me very uneasy about my vote for Obama.

January 24, 2008 5:11 PM

kgrant1054 said:

I have heard this argument often in the last two weeks, and I find that it is becoming more and more absurd to think that the Republicans will offer up attacks that are more unsavory and calculated than those that the Clinton machine has propagated.  Race?  Check.  Drugs?  Check.  Voter supression?  Check.  Flip-flopper on the war?  Check.  Inexperience?  Check.  Financial skullduggery?  Check.  Obama as secret Muslim?  Check.  Early childhood schooling in a madrassa?  Check.  

I am sorry, but I simply don't think that it will be that much different then what the Clinton's and their surrogates have done thus far, and we have only begun the primary season.  My goodness, if Obama is still competitive after Super Tuesday, the Clinton's will throw whatever they can at him.  If he survives the Primaries, he will be inoculated against any further attacks.

Lastly, I sick to death of the talk that somehow ruthlessness  and a willingness to wallow in the slime are the greatest virtues for would be presidents.  Have we come so far that we have given up on the possibility of civil discourse?  Have we given up on the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we would like a substantive debate about the issues without all of the nefarious game playing?

Screw it, let's just torture the bastards during the debates and see who cracks.  There, will that satisfy our burning desire to find the one candidate who is tough enough for the job?

January 24, 2008 5:40 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Jaunty/Mr C, I hear you. I've long agreed with your point that Obama needs toughening up, and better now than in  November. But I still feel queasy at the increasingly race-based angle of the Billary counterpunch.

January 24, 2008 5:52 PM

boxofrox said:

What up, mang? Hey JB. Get right to, " Lying slut."?

January 24, 2008 6:13 PM

teplukhin2you said:

kgrant, have you ever spent much time outside the western world? The leaders of Russia, China, Iran etc play rough. Really rough. Talk to Mr Yushchenko, or the relatives of Ms Politkovskaya if you don't believe me.

Yes, it is a blood sport. No, I don't care much for the Clintons.  Yes, Obama needs to get tough, and in a hurry.

January 24, 2008 6:19 PM

Lundell said:

The thing that is funny about the Clinton attack on Obama's assertion that the Right was the side of the political spectrum generating all the new ideas back in the 1970s and 1980s is that was the reason Bill Clinton and other moderate Dems started the DLC (now New Democrats) way back when.  Heck, I even went to a couple of meetings of the Minnesota Chapter of the DLC back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, one of which featured none other than the future President providing an hour-and-a-half lunch speech (You should have seen the sprint for the restrooms after he finished.  More water-induced fidgeting during the speech than I've ever seen.)  So, as per usual with Clinton, his current stance belies his earlier actions.  If the Right wasn't generating all the new ideas in the 1980s, why did Clinton and others work so hard to create a "new ideas" think tank to counter them?

I supported Bill Clinton and thought he was a reasonably good President, but he's dropping in my estimation every day and that's causing Hillary to drop in my estimation as well.

January 24, 2008 6:27 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

tep and kgrant,

Yes, the Clinton's campaign against Obama is indeed sleazy and has hit upon all those points. Still, as happened in 88 when Gore floated Willie Horton in the primaries, the GOP amped that up exponentially in fall.  Whomever is the nominee for the GOP will not hedge their attacks, modulate to only "insinuate", they will drive each and every point home and then some. Does the term "Swift Boat" ring any bells?

I am not arguing that political cage fighting is good or advisable. It is however, what it is and this is how the game is played. Civil discourse is always preferable but let me know when voters vote for the most civil candidate.

The point is that Obama has an early propensity to whine when attacked.  Fine, I whine when I am attacked too. But I ain't running against a GOP with an infinite capacity for sleaze, slime, and venality.

If he does not develop a better response than self pity, then, like it or not, should he get the nomination, he will get incinerated. Period.

As for the back door race baiting of HC?  This is exactly why people who know her, hate her. Still, in the fall, this sleaze will be crashing through the front door and right in Barack's face. He better be prepared with something more than sputtering...

January 24, 2008 6:32 PM

drdannyu said:

I am feeling more and more like your first post, jaunty.  When, precisely, did people start thinking that politics was about lofty ideals?  This kind of stuff is nothing at all compared to what he will face in November, if he gets the nod.  Yes, I wish that we could all get along and feel good about the process.  Wouldn't that be nice.  And where the hell is my pony, while we're at it?

They will make Rezko sound like Whitewater 2.  (I know, I know...it isn't.  Like they'll care.)  They will impugn ever "present" vote he ever made, regardless of the nuances of Illinois politics.  And God help us if there's any dirt yet to come out, because they will flog anything they can get their hands on like a rented mule.

Negative politics is unseemly, and a bit disappointing.  Horrible, horrible.  But Obama has never faced a credible opponent since gaining national attention, so he'd damn well better come up with something better than criticizing the other side for being mean and nasty.  

January 24, 2008 6:50 PM

Lundell said:

Just want you all to know that I just read Michael Crowley's thread on The Stump that more eloquently states some of the points I made above.  I don't want the Clintons to accuse me of plagiarism.

January 24, 2008 6:52 PM

boxofrox said:

Oh Pshaw. It's going to be easy to take down any Pub with the exception of McCain. You don't have to lie and smear your way to the WH. If it comes to that I'm sitting out. Hell. I live in my own world anyway. I'll make it as best I can without having to accept 'The Realities'. It's one thing to be naive. It's another to be a liar. Machiavelli can kiss my ass.

January 24, 2008 7:09 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Is that the title of your memoirs, Jack?

January 24, 2008 7:16 PM

boxofrox said:

"Is that the title of your memoirs, Jack?"

The whole thing? Oh, and, thanks for the laugh....

Uncynically yours, Jack

January 24, 2008 7:27 PM

Writersclog said:

Isn't the point here not whether Obama can survive these types of attacks - I agree, he could use some seasoning - but the fact that they're coming from the most recognizable and popular member of his own party (the de facto leader, if you will) in an intra-Democratic primary?

I think it's misleading to try to analogize the current situation to whatever the Republicans might dish out to Obama in a general election from both ends. The Clinton attacks speak to the base of Obama's own party, and lots of pro-Bill Dems who aren't political news junkies are likely to take them at or near face value without much further investigation. Obama just doesn't have the option to fight back in the same way he could in the general - punch too hard and he'll turn off a large chunk of Democrats.

It's like the Clintons have tied one of Obama's arms behind his back then challenged him to a fight in the mud, then taunted him and painted him as weak when he calls it unfair.

If the gloves come off in the general, 45% of the electorate will support Obama, 45% will support the Republican candidate, and it's up to the remaining 10% to figure out fact from smear. This is not the general election, folks. I've read one commentator analogize it to two quarterbacks on the same team, one of whom kneecaps the other in practice in order to get the job in the actual game- and I have to agree.

January 24, 2008 7:44 PM

crumtd said:

So many people talk about how dirty Republicans are.  That is true, but take the blinders off, the Clintons fight as dirty as any Republicans and dirtier than most.  Do you want a real change, or do you want the Democratic version of dirtiest of the Republicans?  This is one independent who will not vote for Clinton regardless of who her opponent is.

January 24, 2008 9:30 PM

teplukhin2you said:

From Matt Labash of Weekly Standard, an update on a dirty Republican par excellence: weeklystandard.com/.../617oiaek.asp

January 25, 2008 2:00 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

drdan and others,

I like to use the sparring analogy of my youth. Back in my day, when I sparred, I wanted a mate who would not roll over and let me pound him but someone who would help me with my weaknesses. For instance, early on, I had the very bad habit of dropping my right when I jabbed with my left. This left me open for a counter left, which one sparring partner in particular would slap me me. Every time. Soon, I learned to keep that right up and this helped me tremendously when I would enter an actual bout.

Now, of course, there were some sparring partners would would go way over the line and get too damn aggressive and treat it like a real bout. I would do two things: First, in a clinch I would get my right, turn my glove withe laces facing out and in tight, bring it straight under and up his nose, laces first. This really really hurts - try it sometime with just a glove - and can bring tears to your eyes. If that didn't do it, well, that sparring match was a real fight and I treated it so.  

The last thing we would do would whine or go get the trainers to lodge a complaint.

Obama needs to see that he should start lacing HC and BC right now and if that doesn't work, he needs to accept that this is the fight and instead of whining, fight it on those terms.

January 25, 2008 9:57 AM

The Plank said:

That seems to be the gist of Peggy Noonan's column today, as she gloats that liberals are now coming

January 25, 2008 12:49 PM