Clintons Doubleteam Obama - Will It Backfire On Them?
Published January 23, 2008
Ever since Senator Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses, the Clinton political machine has swung into overdrive attack mode, with former President William Jefferson Clinton, “America’s first ‘black’ President” in the Genghis Khan role, leading the Mongol hordes of the Clinton faithful in an all-out charge against Hillary’s leading opponent and America’s first Black Presidential candidate with a real shot at actually winning the Presidency.
Running scared after Iowa, the Clintons devised a clever team effort, with Bill playing the “bad cop,” attacking Obama at every opportunity, while affording Hillary the leisure of staying above the mean streets of the campaign, as the “good cop” half of the Democratic Dynamic Duo. Early poll returns after implementation of the new strategy seemed to indicate it is working very well; the gap between Obama and Clinton narrowed quickly and decisively, with Hillary winning in New Hampshire and Nevada, virtually erasing Obama’s national lead almost overnight.
As successful as the “tag team” campaign has been on the surface, I can’t help wondering, given the Clintons’ unrivaled success in political campaigning and defeating formidable opponents on the left and the right over the past two decades in Washington, and before that in Arkansas, whether all we see is all there is to their strategy. One has only to recall Bill replying, disingenuously, “Depends on what the definition of ‘is,’ is;” or Hillary wearing a Yankees cap and bragging about her longstanding affection for Bronx Bombers to establish her bonafides for seeking to become Senator of a state with which she had hitherto had very little association to realize that this couple are very clever, disingenuous campaigners.
Not all was roses, however, as Bill repeatedly attacked Obama in speeches and in the press. A number of the Democratic party leaders, alarmed at the image and spectacle Bill was becoming, and their concern over possible perceived harm to the image of the Democratic Party, urged him to tone it down.
In light of their proven deviousness, their unrelenting and steadfast pursuit of the pinnacle in American politics, first for Bill, and now for Hillary, I began to marvel at, and then to examine, their flawlessly choreographed footwork. They both danced around Senator Obama, Bill jabbing and feinting, “stinging like a bee,” while Hillary remained serenely “floating like a butterfly,” keeping her hands relatively clean and leaving the dirty work to the former President.
Until Monday, January 21's CNN-sponsored Democratic Debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Variously described by the pundits as a mud wrestling match and a slug fest, Monday night’s event marked the first time in the current race when the Hillary’s gloves really came off and she personally began freely swinging at Obama.
Though also present, John Edwards largely was relegated to the unenviable role of third wheel as the debate progressed. Ironically, this resulted in what might have been his best debate performance to date, as he attempted to bring the debate back on topic several times during the evening.
After wasting nearly half his life in a career in airline administration, Clavos has finally found his niche as a self-employed used boat salesman in South Florida. He has lived abroad off and on since childhood. Clavos says he's fluent in Spanish, and can annoy waiters and cabdrivers in Portuguese, Italian and French as well. He and his wife are owned by two black cats and are avid boating enthusiasts.
- Clintons Doubleteam Obama - Will It Backfire On Them?
- Published: January 23, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Local and Regional, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Clavos
- Clavos's BC Writer page
- Clavos's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Obviously your are a Obama supporter. You are overlooking the fact that he started the potshots at the debate.
Also, you are granting him that the aura like demeanor is natural and the pot-shot taking one is something he is putting on or is being forced too!
Don't you find his performance week when he is talking issues and not oratory?
Clintons have their faults but putting wool over woolly eyed can hardly be a charge.
...pobre muchacho Obama
on c-span this morning Zogby is reporting that the black vote is breaking 5 to 1 for Obama in SC in his most recent polling
The Clintons are ruthless in their pursuit of Power. Obama is special, he wants honesty. Campaign your heart out, Clintons, but be HONEST. They aren't. Thank God, I'm Canadian! God Help America!
The Clinton Obama feud reminds me of what Henry Kissinger said the Iran-Iraq War: "It's too bad both sides can't lose."
"Obviously your are a Obama supporter."
Actually, I'm not. I'm a lifelong right-of-center Conservative Libertarian who, at Presidential level has always voted Libertarian or Republican; never Democratic.
But I hate to see dirty pool.
"You are overlooking the fact that he started the potshots at the debate."
Did you actually read the article?? The Clintons were taking potshots at Obama for weeks before the debate.
"Also, you are granting him that the aura like demeanor is natural and the pot-shot taking one is something he is putting on or is being forced too!"
Since he started out statesmanlike and maintained it for weeks until the sniping by the Clintons became incessant, I think it's the obvious conclusion.
"Don't you find his performance week when he is talking issues and not oratory?"
Saying he is weak on the issues is the stock criticism of Obama, employed by all his opponents. Seemingly, it's the worst thing they can find to say about him, and it's easily refuted by a quick read of his positions on his website, where they are all clearly spelled out.
...pobre muchacho Obama
De acuerdo.
Y pobres de nosotros si la vieja le gana...
"The question to me is why this type of vindictive campaigning doesn't just make more people hate Hillary, if that's even possible."
If they continue their sniping at, and manipulation of Obama, that may well happen.
And they may; they are certainly afraid of him.
I live in a rural area of Panama and have pretty good internet but no TV; hence, I may have missed something. However, I have read that in one of her few public appearances, Mrs. Obama did pretty well.
How would it be if Mrs. Obama took up the game for her husband, and responded to former President Clinton's garbage? It would be a dirty game, and she might not enjoy it; but maybe, just maybe, it might earn Obama some female votes, and put Mr. Hillary where the Clintons are trying to stash Obama.
Just an idea, but might be better for Obama than his various male surrogates.
Dan
Heck of an analysis, Clavos. I hadn't thought about it that way.
I've always tried to make the distinction between Bill and Hillary, because they're two different politicians with very different styles, and different advisors. I've found a lot of analysis of "the Clintons" to be wrong. But the last couple of weeks, I've noticed Hillary adopting some of Bill's moves. Like the crying - that was the big one for me.
In this past debate, Hillary did another Bill trick. When caught lying, she repeated her lie with righteous indignation. That was always her husband's specialty, sticking to a false story so loyally that you start to think it's the truth.
This "praising Reagan and Republicans" thing is interesting. My theory is that she's backed Obama into a corner where he has to say the one thing Democrats aren't allowed to: that Bill Clinton is a habitual liar. Then, BOOM: Hillary's going to accuse Obama of being a right-winger. It's demented, but it's the only possible reason for her effort to paint him as a Reaganite.
My theory is that she's backed Obama into a corner where he has to say the one thing Democrats aren't allowed to:
I thought saying Ronald Reagan was a human being was the one thing scumbag moonbats weren't allowed to say.
Oh well I guess they are forbidden by their masters to give Reagan even the slightest praise or offer even the slightest criticism of that sexual predator known as slick willie.
Thanks, B-tone.
You raise some very interesting points; I hadn't caught the correlation on the lie.
Dick Morris (who, admittedly, has a strong bias against Hillary) has an interesting take on Hillary's strategy for the SC primary; have you seen it?
Bottom Line:
Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has.
"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."
But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.
But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!
We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.
I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.
Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.
The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.
As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.
My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!
Baronius,
HUMBLE apologies. I of course know that you are not Baritone.
I have no explanations or excuses; only apologies.
Mea culpa.
I don't give much credence to anything Dick Morris says about the Clintons (or about anything else). Interesting theory of his, though.
BTW, this is the second time today I've been B-toned. He's the guy who disagrees with everything I say.
I think Hillary got a good slap in with the inner-city slum lord connection to Obama. I'm not sure that Obama's counter charge of her being on the board of Wal-Mart will turn too many people off.
Slum lord vs. Wal-Mart.
There are reams and reams of nastiness these two can throw at each other. I just hope the race stays close enough to give them time to get around to it.
God knows a white Republican wouldn't get away with saying "Obama hasn't done the spade work..."
"I think Hillary got a good slap in with the inner-city slum lord connection to Obama."
Yeah, all FIVE HOURS of it. Whoopee!
"...which she had hitherto had very little association..."
- Clavos
Was the second "had" really necessary?
I just wish that Barack would "accidentally" refer to her as "Monica" just one time. You know, like a Freudian thing:
"Um, excuse me Monica, Oh! I mean Hillary. Sorry."
My goodness, REMF. Three straight comments without a single mention of who served or didn't serve. What's up with you tonight?
Morris is another one of Bill's used and abused 'lovers' -
in the RCP article he says: *Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election.*
but (absurd questions about degrees of blackness aside) I first caught a serious glimmer of the race card in Obama's Iowa victory speech where he patted voters on their collective head for being ready to vote black...er 'for change' that is
Ah, troll, ever the skeptic/cynic.
I like that about you.
Fascinating analysis but I'm not sure I agree. We are, after all, still talking about the Democratic party here, more than the general electorate...and there's a very interesting article in the Washington Post today about how the Democrats have begun to turn away from Hillary for her sheer nastiness and insistence on rehashing things that have already been discredited.
That said, I'm not sure it'll be Obama who benefits from that turning away. I think people are turned off by both of them squabbling with each other. This may, instead, be the thing that raises Edwards' numbers and keeps him in the race.
I saw that article, too, Michael.
I would hope that the Democratic voters would take a close look at the chronology of the squabbling before turning away from Obama.
One thing that does seem to have become crystal clear from the new Clinton tactic: Hillary is not running alone; nor, IMO, would she govern alone if elected. It's a twofer package deal; that's obvious, now.
Can't say I agree with your idea of Edwards being the beneficiary of the "turn off" from the squabbling. Most pundits consider Edwards to be a dead man walking already, and I agree.
It would be a real shame if the electorate tars Obama with the same brush that the Clintons so richly deserve, given that he tried very hard to refrain from descending to their level in the fray.
He should at least get some credit for that.
As someone who likes both candidates very much, I haven't enjoyed the bickering and sniping of the last month. But I also think non-Democrats, in particular those who strongly dislike the Clintons, are overreacting to what's going on, and allowing their own I-hate-Bill-and-Hillary prejudice to cloud their vision.
This is a tough primary battle. But it's not even close to the nastiness of Bush-McCain in 2000. I don't remember whether Republicans were wringing their hands over that at the time.
And I would still be surprised if the result is not a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall. By then, all this January finger-pointing will seem a very distant memory.
Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.
Walmart vs. slum lords? I think that the average Democrat hates Walmart more.
Nice article Clavos. Clearly they were trying to make Obama crack. Although I think people may hate Hillary so much so that seeing Obama crack under the relentless clinton attack machine might be a good thing for Obama.
The Washington Times had a very interesting article today that also tries to explain why the clintons are putting forth such a strong offense - WT says it is really a defensive measure, but I will let yall read that one:
A GOP Ace In the Hole
Please participate in a BC Forum presidential poll by clicking here
It's hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. It's more about Clinton bashing than defending Obama, whom few of these commentators [possibly excepting Clavos] would vote for in the fall anyway. Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so.
Handy,
"Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so."
Of course he is; I also would say a little more so, because he's less of the political establishment than they are, and that, obviously, is a large part of his attraction. It's all kind of tied together.
"It's hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. "
Handyguy,
I think in the context of a primary, it is a big deal. There is no question that there has been a backlash against both campaigns for engaging in what many would consider politics as usual. Especially damaging for a candidate who is running on the platform of change, but also adds fuel to the fire for those who hate hillary already.
Will this have a meaningful net effect? Who knows, might just galvanize supporters. Worse things have happened before a primary without negative impact. That said, I have to wonder how sincere a hillary/obama general election ticket can be at this point.
"Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so."
The difference being, of course, that Obama has morals and the Clintons don't.
Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.
I think Morris is one of the sharper analysts out there. He worked for Clinton and presumably knows how he thinks. I tend to find him bery believable.
Dave
My problem with Morris is that he's a betrayer. You can never tell what's motivating the analysis of that sort of person.
I'll grant you that Morris is obviously very much opposed to the Clintons, but that does beg the question of why?
What did they do to him to warrant that vindictiveness?
There's more to the story than meets the eye, and given how Machiavellian the Clintons (especially Bill) are, whatever it is has got to be a doozy.
Incidentally, following up on the article and Morris's analysis: there's no question that Bill, by attacking Obama so viciously, managed to manipulate the sentiments of the African American South Carolinians to rally behind Obama to such an extent that he (Bill) can now believably work to death the claim that Obama's win in SC was racial.
That's not a put down of the Black folks in SC; rather, it's a recognition of the deviousness of William Jefferson Clinton.
Watch for it; in not more than 24 hours the point will be made, if not by Bill or Hillary, by someone highly placed in their campaign. It will then be repeated incessantly until they can turn the white voters in other states who might have been considering him, against Obama, him in a political race war. They managed to transform Obama into a "Black" man running for President, just as Morris predicted.
I hope Obama is able to deal with it successfully.
Now I'm really starting to root for Senator Obama...
I've already seen the angle. Yesterday on the news, there were juxtaposed pictures of Obama at a southern black church and Hillary Clinton at a staid (probably New England) service.
The press doesn't want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.
The press doesn't want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.
Astonishing comment. Chris Matthews, to name one, seems shamelessly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.
Some of us who voted for HRC are not anti-Obama and wouldn't object to his being nominated. I assume that applies to the NY Times editorial page as well.
But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly.
handyguy,
"But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly."
I don't think racism is that much of an issue here. It does exist and is significant, but not decisive, as to whether Obama is allowed at the top of the ticket.
Obama is very popular to many people, especially those who want 'change'. The problem is he can't deliver. If he is either housebroken, or just fails, there will be plenty of frustration and a further decline of credibility of the two-party shell game. Nobody has ANY expectations for Clinton.
I could see Clinton coming out and saying, 'I think Obama SHOULD be president, but... not this time. Eight years experience as Vice President will give him the preparation that he, and our country, needs.'
In face of powerful opposition it would be hard for Obama to refuse if he wants to be on the ticket at all.
This would neutralize some of the anti-Clinton hatred. Obama would give Clinton a 'progressive' cover. Many would swallow their pride and vote for that ticket.
Les
"But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly."
You mean racism on the part of Dems? Coz any Republicans that might vote for Obama are certainly not going to be racists, and the Reps who are racists certainly won't vote for a black man, much less one who's a Democrat.
So you're saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don't lose you the election...
Clavos,
"So you're saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don't lose you the election..."
Of course that's what he's saying. And they would if they thought that was the best solution.
Les
for those of you who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class I offer the following:
class war is a real phenomenon with practical manifestations...and in this election party actually might make a difference in the war
since Taft-Hartley tore the heart out of the Wagner Act labor's power to engage in collective action has been held in check - over the years lame attempts to push back in statute have been forwarded (by Democrats) without success
Ted Kennedy introduced Senate Bill s.1041 last year and it has been sent to Committees - the House has already passed the similar HR 800
while this legislation does not repeal Taft-Hartley it is a small step in the left direction - it re-empowers labor by protecting workers trying to unionize and offers the beginnings of a solution to the right-to-work 'free rider' problem which has caused the decline in worker participation in unions over the years
the only way that this legislation has a chance of becoming law is with a dem in the White House and a dem Congress
so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic
I love it when you talk worker to me, troll...
If I ever have to start working I'll certainly start voting dem.
troll,
"so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic"
As bad as Taft-Hartley is, it is not THE problem. The problem IS that most of the union 'leadership' has had their heads up the asses of the two major parties, mostly Democrat, at least since the beginning of the Roosevelt era.
The building of the CIO was primarily a battle between workers, with some, at times of the highest caliber, class-conscious leadership, and industry, which used both parties to its advantage. One big handicap was a sector, usually at the top, of the union 'leadership', collaborated, in one form or another, with the bosses and their political stooges.
We need to fight to rebuild our unions and begin to organize all working people. Along the way we will need to build our own political party, completely independent of the capitalist class and their political stooges.
Anyone believing that voting for Democrats is a step forward for workers is deluding themselves, and unfortunately, any they influence. It is just a continuation of politically tying the hands of workers to the interests of their class enemy. This needs to be rejected.
Les
(...oh yeah - to keep myself 'on-topic' - both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill)
Les - I agree that revolutionary change will occur outside of the existing political avenues and question whether or not partial measures like s.1041 are counter productive
I offered my comment to those - *who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class*
troll,
"... both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill"
The bill ain't goin' to do shit. To the extent we tie ourselves to the enemy, it only weakens us.
Les
...I'm sick of 'corruption'
why hasn't unionism led to equity - ?...corruption
why hasn't capitalism fed the poor - ?...corruption
why hasn't politics led to just governance - ?...corruption
why hasn't religion led to enlightenment - ?...corruption
if ever there was a concept in need of deconstruction this is it
You want corruption? Keep an eye out for an upcoming ABC expose on Hillary Clinton in her role as a board member at WalMart sitting in enthusiastically on discussions of how to bar unions from getting a foothold in their stores. Another example of her bottomless well of hypocrisy.
Dave
Gotta love that liberal media that desperately wants Hillary to be President...
if americans want a democracy, rather than the plutocracy they have, the solution is simple ... abolish the presidency, and fold its powers into the house, plus severely trim the powers of the senate
this'd reverse the bizarre diffusion of power between the three legislative bodies [ the presidency, house and senate], which simply creates a power vacuum filled with bribes, and obliterate the independent uncontrollable powers of typically deranged characters who become presidents, and who additonally quickly commence a couple of large scale wasteful imperial wars, in an effort to steal from other nations and cut down on the backlog of enemies the nation's paranoids, including relgious nuts see as needing to be attacked
such a new arrangement'd be a novelty in one surprising area ... with a greater concentration of power would come political accountability of the politicians to the citizens, who for the first time would experience the joys of inflicting massive electoral retribution on the crooks and scoundrels currently in congress
i suspect the taft-hartley act would be repealed in 6 months, and the nation would enjoy universal single payer health care within a year
the latter change would simply rip one trillion away from the current annual two trillion dollar health care bill, and give it to the citizens, from the current annual us gdp of fourteen trillion
politicians would become flunkeys for the citizens, not the large corporations
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/73174)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The question to me is why this type of vindictive campaigning doesn't just make more people hate Hillary, if that's even possible.
Dave