BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« The loopy logic of Gov. Sophomorevich | Main | Land of Linkin' »

Friday, January 25, 2008

Should Obama campaign against Clinton or against the Clintons?

I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes....Barack Obama, referring in a recent debate to the extraordinary zeal with which former President Bill Clinton has been campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

He's running against both Clintons, obviously.

Not only has the former president been out on the trail slagging Obama daily, but also a central premise of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid is that Americans have fond memories of the Bill Clinton years and will vote for the revival that her candidacy portends.

A new radio spot in South Carolina and narrated by Bill Clinton makes this case explicitly:



The question is, should Obama pick up this gauntlet and campaign against the Clintons instead of simply campaigning against Hillary Clinton?

On one hand, it's true, those were pretty good years in this country by some measures and Clinton left office with the highest job-approval ratings of any modern president -- higher even than the martyred John Kennedy and the sainted Ronald Reagan.

On the other hand, though, the public back then did not seem to want more of  Clinton.  Al Gore sure didn't seem to think so. When he ran for the White House in 2000 as the incumbent vice president he bragged on the policies and programs of the administration, but ran away from Clinton the man.

From the Tribune archives--

8/2/2000: Gore doesn't seem to know what to do about Clinton. Try to pretend he doesn't exist, because of the unpleasantness of the past two years? If he does that, he will also have to run away from Clinton's enviable record on substantive issues -- and from Clinton's big approval ratings. And besides -- Gore can't distance himself from Clinton. The Republicans will never let the country forget (Bob Greene column)

8/7/2000:     Picking the moderate Democrat and self-styled moral crusader (Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman) as his running mate signals an effort by Gore to win over independent and Republican voters and distance himself from President Clinton's controversies. Lieberman was the first prominent Democratic lawmaker to openly criticize the president's conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Polls show Republican George W. Bush benefiting from "Clinton fatigue."

8/11/2000: Just as Gore has sought to distance himself from Clinton in his campaign, the president sought Thursday to put space between himself and Gore. "Surely no fair-minded person would blame him for the mistakes I've made," the president volunteered at the end of a 75-minute question and answer session before an audience of 4,500 in Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington.

8/24/2000:  Some pundits accused Gore of staging the (long passionate kiss of his wife, Tipper, at the Democratic convention) to further distance himself from the Clintons' marital troubles

10/22/2000: Clinton has been raising money tirelessly for individual congressional candidates and for the Democratic Party. But Gore has not asked Clinton to take on a task at which many Democrats believe he would excel, attacking Bush's proposals and exhorting Democrats to go to the polls.

In addition, here's a snippet from an Associated Press story from 8/11/2000: Pivately, Gore advisers said they were long since resigned to a political paradox: Clinton is a drag on the Democratic ticket, and yet may be the only person who can help scrub the taint of scandal from Gore. One senior Gore ally compared Clinton to an elephant in the room you can't ignore, can't control and can't ask to leave.

Why? ABC News explained in a January, 2001 analysis of the polling data:

{Bill Clinton has] truly dismal personal ratings: Sixty-seven percent of Americans say he's not honest and trustworthy. Seventy-seven percent say he lacks high moral and ethical standards. And just 44 percent view him favorably "as a person.

In those latter numbers and in the collective memory of years when  Bill Clinton's own sleazy behavior disgraced the office and harmed the Democratic party is an opening -- perhaps the only opening -- for Obama now that the game is afoot and Bill Clinton has offered himself so explicitly as a credential for his wife.

It would have been chancy for Obama (or Edwards, yes, I know he's still in the race) to be the first to play the "Clinton Fatigue" card against Hillary Clinton.

And it may still be chancy. Clinton Nostalgia may well be stronger among core Democrats than Clinton Fatigue.

But if Obama's campaign survives Saturday -- South Carolina is a must win for him and we all know now not to believe the polls -- he should start practicing the phrase, "my opponent, the Clintons."

Never mind going negative, it's time for Obama to go plural.



. I'm for Hillary because I feel like I know what I'm getting--a family that cares about the environment and advancement all people. Having Bill go off on the campaign trail is just with the territory. We have never had such a power couple before and we will never have this chance again. Some say it would be un-American to have two families be in office for so long, well I say its very American to embrace a family that stands up for what is America--diversity, the environment and ....well too much to say.
The governor of IL has endorsed Obama-- he should fix IL and Chicago before he makes any endorsements.

Great advice, Eric. Weren't you the one who piled on so mercilessly with Hillary that a huge backlash resulted?
The fact that Bill Clinton - a fantastic campaigner - was kept away from Gore's campaign is a significant factor to Gore losing. Spin it whatever way you want, but since Bill's been stepping up to help his wife, her numbers have stopped dropping, and have been going up. Bill is popular - and results do matter.

ZORN REPLY -- If you're talking about the pile-on after her Hillary Rodham Verklempton moment --- dang, I wish that joke had taken off! -- my writing on that was awfully mild.

candidates should run on what they are for!
and what they believe.
not against other candidates.

ZORN REPLY-- I disagree with this. I think it's important to examine and critique an opponent's record to be sure he or she is presenting it fairly and completely. Candidates can't simply let their opponents say whatever they want about their own record. Just as a hypothetical example, if Candidate Smith says "I voted against 15 proposed tax increases in my former position," that may not be enough to give a full, honest picture. And I see something very salutary about Candidate Jones saying, "But candidate Smith voted FOR 150 proposed tax increases during that same period."

Seems to me candidates should campaign FOR themselves. Obama was doing fine when he campaigned FOR himself. It was when someone told him he needed to campaign AGAINST someone that the water became murky.

Only the media who want to put their own spin on things are getting caught up in the Bill and Hillary nonsense.

Those who suggest Bill Clinton should shut up do so because they want Obama to win and want to paint Bill's role as being negative.

Those who suggest Bill should be active do so because they want Hillary.

Is anyone saying Hillary is running against Barak and Michelle? Is anyone griping about her efforts.

Most voters do not care and expect a spouse to campaign for their spouse.

It is quite interesting to watch how so-called neutral media like to take sides and raise issues with connotations attached to them. Read the wording of headlines and pictures. Most media is no longer neutral and is taking sides.

Personally I hope they ALL get off the negativity and campaign the issues. We need to win in November. An OBAMA-CLINTON or CLINTON-OBAMA ticket might be unstoppable!

Remember "In Bush we trusted, now we are busted"

People wanted to see Clinton supporting Gore - but Gore was too stupid to ask for help.

It would have been so easy for Clinton to speak for himself rather than Gore robotically defending acts that he did not even do!

There is definitely something disquieting about a former president's wife running for president. When a powerful man's wife runs for office, as has often happened in Third World countries and in some of our more backward states, (Alabama comes to mind), it is usually for the purpose of the powerful man getting around a term limit to retain his power. The wife is just a stand-in and everyone knows it.

That is how Hillary would be viewed by much of the world. She would be viewed as more of an Isabel Perón than a Margaret Thatcher.

Bill Clinton was a very lucky man who took credit for what Bill Gates and othes did for the American economy in the 1990's.
If only the former President had had good sense and provided good leadership in the 1990s, we might not have had the Bush regime play up against a sex-addicted President and win the White House and drive our nation into catastrophe.

Senator Obama needs to keep his political presentation and persuasion and not stoop down to the morally and ethically challenged Clintons..

My own belief regarding Al Gore and the American people's response to his campaign in 2000 is that in distancing himself from the president, he showed a lack of loyalty -- say what you will, but arguing "backing up the president is part of my job" has worked for past vice presidents on their way to the White House. While people disapproved of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, he was still a popular president. Gore's holier-than-thou attitude is what left a bad taste in my mouth -- not bad enough for me to vote for Bush, but enough to make me dislike the man I had so admired for the first six years of Clinton's tenure.

I've been saying all along that Obama is running against Hillary/Bill. They are interchangeable. 2fers, and such a lovely, devoted couple. When Hillary responded to an earlier debate question with "...But he's not here..." someone should have called her out on that. Chris Mathews should never have apologized for his comments about the only reason she is running is because Bill had sex with "that woman," or something to that effect. It only emboldened them more, especially the innocent victim side of their character. And, they have a tandem act they perform in Black churches where they prance in and talk about feeling their pain. Hillary is in a Black Church in So Carolina telling the students the Federal Government is going to double the amount of funding for Historically Black Colleges. Anybody with a pea brain knows that is not going to happen. It didn't happen during the Bill/Hillary administration, and it ain't gonna happen during the Hillary/Bill administration.

"Piling on"?! This guy has been leading the anti-Clinton charge from day one!

Thankfully though, Hillary hasn't faded.

Why is everyone all over the Clintons? Maybe the truce this time should be Bill should stop helping his wife if Michelle stops helping her husband?? Just because Bill is making the paper more than Michelle is it Hillary's problem?

We all know politics is just that - use what you can to its greatest degree. Obama was coddled through the Senete and appears to be through the democratic nomination. If he can't handle the pressure from the Clinton's, he for sure wont handle the pressure from the republicans ( e.g. Monica, Swift Boats... )

Obama does not need to go plural what he should do is force himself and Hillary to stick to the issues. We are looking for a LEADER not a headline.

"Should Obama campaign against Clinton or against the Clintons?"

Eric, how about neither? How about campaigning FOR those things he believes America needs? That would represent real change compared to the he-said/she-said politics we've had to endure and that are now ratcheting up to a seemingly personal level.

The level of racism that the Clinton(s) campaign has exhibited in the last 2 weeks is at the level that would make me feel that it's better to sit out this general election rather than to vote for Hillary

If Hillary is elected and Bill operates in any "co-presidency" capacity it will be incumbent on congress to impeach them for violating the constitutional term limits for a president.

vote ABC [Anyone But Clinton(s)]

Well, let's see: Suddenly Hillary Rodham Clinton is now simply Hillary Clinton. Fact is no one would know who Hillary is if not for Bill; wouldn't even be in politics if not for that man. She's riding his coat tails and she'll be doing the same if she's elected.

One thing I learned in all my years of studying and practicing management was that past behavior is the best predictor of current and future behavior. I remember Bill Clinton wagging his finger at me during the '90s and claiming, "I did not have sexual relationships with that woman." He lied to me then. He lied under oath. So why would I believe him now when he so wantonly trashes Obama?

What, you don't think the USA should be run by two families? That model works so well all around the world in two-bit dictatorships and in "democracies." Just think how many more Bushes and Clintons are out there, we might never really have to vote again.

Democrats beware!

Wake up, folks. Hillary is awful.

Let me back up up. I'm a Republican. Don't tax me to pay people that don't want to work. Attack our enemies. Reagan was AWESOME.

Now the Republican party has changed its focus to be an evangelical anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-cross-racial, HATEFUL group. Worse than the Democrats!

I've grown weary of being a Republican, but for crying out loud, if you people nominate Hillary, I'll vote for that nutbag Romney, or whoever else my ex-party comes up with.

Seriously--vote for Obama. The Clintons and Bushes have had their chance--let's have someone else for a change.

I'm a Republican, and I want OBAMA to be our next president.

What he doesn't have in experience he makes up with in enthusiasm AND INTELLIGENCE.

Enough already! The new media frenzy focusing on President Clinton’s support of his wife Hillary has become an outrageous double standard and an all-time low in this presidential election. Every time I turn on the television or open the newspaper I hear and read derogatory commentary on Bill’s support of Hillary, questions of who is really running for president, and whether Bill is trying to earn another seat in the White House. Come on, folks! Talk about a double standard! The other candidates, both Republican AND Democrat, have their spouses campaigning for them, giving speeches, talking to Americans, and promoting them and making their case of why HE should be the next president of the United States. Fair enough! I’m happy about that; I encourage it! I want to hear from the candidate’s spouses. I want to know about their life as a husband, man, employee, businessman, and the like. I want to know that they are supported by their family. But why, when Hillary’s husband does the same and is her number one supporter does it turn into a negative bash on her campaign and a big news story? I’m sick and tired of the bashing of Bill’s support for Hillary. It is a no win situation! If he wasn’t supporting her, the media would be airing stories on Bill NOT supporting his wife and that he didn’t have faith in her leadership abilities. Bill is her husband and has worked with her on numerous political issues in our country. He put her as head of the health care reform when he was president. He knows what she is capable of and knows how she operates – probably better than anyone else in this country! He IS the best reference for her candidacy. I realize he has enormous power because he was our former president. However, there are other powerful and influential people supporting other candidates (i.e. Oprah’s campaigning for Obama). This doesn’t seem to be an issue with the media!

Maybe it IS a “team effort.” So what! Hillary did remarkable things for our country working on solutions when she was “First Lady” – probably more than we know. And when Hillary gets elected as the next president, I’m sure the media is going to make a big issue that Bill will be doing the same thing for Hillary as the “First Man.” Great! This country is in BAD SHAPE. There isn’t one middle-class person you can talk to that would say otherwise. The economy, our healthcare coverage, social security, foreign affairs…and the list goes on! Who says two heads aren’t better than one?! Bill accomplished many things while in office and our country was a lot better off during his terms of presidency – and I’m certain Hillary helped him on many issues. Mistakes were made (which also seems to be the focus of numerous news stories), but they were also recognized and admitted by Hillary – weren’t YOU better at riding your bike the second time you climbed aboard? She is more knowledgeable on foreign affairs, the economy, and health care than any other candidate running because of her 8-years as First Lady (in addition to her other achievements). We should recognize her experience and WELCOME that – not make a big deal that her husband is supporting her! Let’s quit with the double standards that are being raised and get on with the real news story – how the candidates differ on their policies and solutions to bringing the American dream back to a realistic achievement! Maybe that is what is really wrong with our country – we have lost sight of what is truly important! We’re more interested in a “good news story” than the truth. Let’s be better than that – for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and the home of the red, white, and blue!

ZORN REPLY -- Traditionlly spouses arern't attack dogs and neither are ex-presidents. They tend to stay positive, general and out of the bitter fighting, as Oprah did, as GHWB did for Dubya. And beyond that is the special role in our political life for ex presidents. They're supposed to be elder statesmen, not political brawlers. And though you may approve heartily of how Bill Clinton is playing the game, evidently the Democratic establishment is pretty wroth about it.

In the last debate it would be great for all the voters if Clinton, Obama and Edwards took on the Republicans. We already know all 3 are like great political boxers. They can take and give a punch. All are still standing! Lets see more jabs and rights thrown at the Republicans in the last debate? Somewhere in this group is a winning ticket just waiting for the real race start.

I was one of the 83%. I believed at the time Bill merely dissembled about his sex life, a personal matter, but was generally honest. Now I realize I was wrong. Now I see clearly that both Clintons are dishonest to the core, driven only by self-serving ambition. They've both distorted Obama's record and used race to try to marginalize him. I understand now why so many people are repulsed by them.

If another Clinton is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain. He at least tries to be honorable.

Judging from the many online bloggers and other comments I've seen, my sentiments are shared by many Democrats, to say nothing of independents.

Pete A.

Imagine if Bush Sr. campaigned for his son in 2000, just 1/10th as much as Bill is campaigning for Hillary today. Everyone would have screamed foul about Daddy helping out his hapless son. Yet Bill can prop up and takeover Hillary's campaign, and no one judges her ability to hold her own water. What a farce. Hillary is nothing without Bill. If she weren't his wife, she would be dean at some obscure college by now. She has no inherent political acumen outside his orbit.
Shouldn't the leader of the free world get elected on his or her own ability and merit? She is completely riding his coattails. So much for the first woman President, who can't even get anywhere without her husband's influence. And she considers herself a feminist icon. What a joke.
By Hillary's logic, Laura Bush should parachute into Utah and takeover Senator Craig's seat, stew in the Senate for a few years, then declare herself "the most qualified and experienced" candidate in the country to be President. Why? because she's been there! She knows, she's fought for 35 years, blah blah blah. (George W could hit the campaign trail again!)
It's sad that this is the best the Democratic party can do. These two co-dependent megalomaniacs maintain their grip on the party only because they're the most obsessed with ruling the country. They will say and do anything beyond what other, more grounded and sane candidates would consider dignified and classy. How exhausting.
Bill's frat-boy shinanigans and Hillary's enabling where cute during the Spring Break from History that was the 1990s. Too much is at stake now, and America doesn't need their egomaniac psycho-babble soap opera.

I'm not lock step with those who can't move progressive forward. Therefore the Clintons have shown me enough that they are morally bankrupt and anything could come from that element. I will never forget as a preteen watching the President of the United States of America say "I did not have sex with that woman". It was a discussion Many folks didn't want to have with there kids especially about oral sex! And this is the family that some Americans want back in the White House? You mean to tell every young person who will become active in the vote g process that this is the best choice will have over Hillary who only has a few years in the senate or herself. Sad America!

When Bill left office the country was running so well people thought they could be selective enough to get a good "moral" man AND a good president. They ended up with a man who is neither due to a moral backlash and Gore's refusal to not only "dance with who brung ya" but to give credit where credit was due.
Now our country is again in dire straits and in my opinion most voters want to return to a proven winner and they are for the most part quite willing to overlook any past moral indiscretions in order to feel right again. Right about their 401k's, right about their "possibly" gay neighbor's rights to live equally, right about their security and right about their country's standing in the world's opinion poll.
Getting a slurp from an intern seems much less significant now and with good reason.

Eric's conclusion hits the mark. My Clinton memory: trying to explain to my young children the President's actions with Monica Lewinski revealed in his impeachment trial.

How quickly Travelgate, White Water Gate and the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom pass from the memory of the Clinton years.

Hey, Chicago Tribune, Hillary is fighting against Hussein Obama and all liberal media.
Can you guys stop the manipulation of public opinion? And start worrying about the IL corruption, from governor to politicians? Shame.

Heard at the Clinton breakfast table:

Hillary: Gadzooks! That darn Drudge and his photo of us with Rezko makes me look like a hypocrite.

And I already made my excuse on this Rezko mess and the press isn't buying it.

Bill: Whaddidusay hun?

Hillary: I told them that I did not know who Rezko is.

Bill: Well, you could tell them now it depends what the meaning of "is" is.


Worked for me.

(Sic semper Dogpatch)

ZORN REPLY -- The Rezko w/ Clintons photo was slightly amusing and only slightly relevant. It shows that Rezko was one of those guys who ingratiates himself with the powerful and wasn't a pariah at the time Obama got to know him. It doesn't say anything either way about Obama's subsequent dealings with Rezko.

WAAA WAAA WAAAA If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen...Harry Truman

Chicago has a rough & tumble political history. This campaign is nothing people. Wait until the Rethuglicans begin the real cruxifiction this fall.

We support the future President Hillary Clinton. She is clearly the most qualified, intelligent, experienced, with the best grasp of domestic & international issues in the race of any party. Wow, she impresses more each time she speaks. The Dems are very fortunate to have her.

The U.S. & the world (where Hillary & Bill Clinton are known, respected, beloved, admired, and MISSED) can't wait for the return of the best political team in history to return to the White House. Hillary's qualifications stand alone, the bonus for all of us is Bill by her side.

We must keep our eye on the prize, friends. The hell on earth that George W. Bush as brought us must end. Together, we must win the White House for the Dems whoever the nominee of the Dem Party is, we will enthusiastically support them.

By the way, Chicago is a mess. Your trains suck, icky casinos line the city, etc. Fix your own house.

ZORN REPLY -- There are no casinos, icky or otherwise, in Chicago. Not much we can do about surburban or NW Indiana casinos. Sorry about the trains.

I don't understand why Hillary wants to attack Obama like she! If she is elected as President (which I truly hope doesn't happen), will Mr. Clinton be doing extra work on other workers? I haven't forgot what he did in office as President! Wasn't he also going through same scandle back where he was governor? So she should push what she will do for America and not on slamming others! She isn't perfect in this race either! Truth be told, I have already voted for Obama! Her crying bull and using kids to hit her with questions blew me! I am a woman and crying didn't get me nothing but more trouble! She should toughen up! Stop that slamming! Wake up people! We don't need a drama queen in the white house with a drama king!

Hey First Rate, you commented that Clinton (Bill) was kept away from Gore's campaign. That may be right, but Gore would have been President if Clinton would have steped down after his lying under oath and the sleaze. Gore would have finished Clinton's term and won the election.

Eric is right in saying that the election is about both Hillary and Bill. Hillary needs Bill, but I doubt most people want both of them. Actually, I suspect that most people want neither of them.

I disagree. Obama needs (needed? isn't it really over?) to run an issues campaign. He missed several opportunities to do so and now he's let the Clintons turn this into a racial campaign (white women v. African-Americans; Latinos v. African-Americans; white women + Latinos is greater than African Americans). That's a campaign he cannot win.

An issues campaign pivots on the so-called "likability" issue. "Hillary, you're not as 'likeable' as Barack" turns onto a high-ground "America wants to hear about the issues" instead of "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

When Hillary tears up, Obama repeats, "Let's stick to the issues."

When Bill tears into Obama for calling Reagan "transformational," Obama reminds Democrats that Bill said he was the only person in the United States of America who likes both George W. Bush and John Kerry, but that this campaign isn't about that. It's about the issues.

Focusing on the issues is the only way Obama gets to the White House. It might be too late; so many white women in S.C. have returned to their white roots and too many blacks are thinking about jobs in a Clinton administration.

If it is too late, Obama let it get away by letting the Clintons turn the campaign into a racial struggle and not one centered on the issues.

I agree that when applicable, Obama should say 'Clintons' or 'Bill and Hillary'. I think it would be rude to leave either one out when they're obviously a team.

The problem is when the two Clintons are arguing between themselves, such as whether the role of a President is CEO or COO:
Now watch Obama's interview 'Afternoon with Barack Obama' at the Reno Gazette-Journal (45:30 - 48:07 covers the relevant part)

imo, this shows Bill's joint rule plan. As Molly Ivins said, "When someone tells you who they are, believe them."
Bill: The President is the Chief Executive Officer, not running the bureaucracy, but responsible for seeing that ideas turn into changes.
Hillary: "You have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy."

And sometimes, Bill argues with his own past statements, such as when he was so indignant this week that anyone would DREAM of claiming he was anything like Lee Atwater (Karl Rove's mentor).

"Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, seems to agree with that assessment, having effectively vowed to run her operation much as Rove did his two successful national campaigns...Harris and Halperin wrote last year that Rove and the Clintons shared some of the same understandings of how politics work, and the two authors even crafted a list they titled 'What Hillary Clinton and Karl Rove Know About the Way to Win the White House in 2008.' Clinton, they wrote, has 'borrowed some strategies' from Rove for dealing with the news media, enemies and anticipated attacks. 'Like Karl Rove,' they wrote, 'Hillary Clinton knows that playing offense is better than playing defense. . . . Hillary Clinton obviously dislikes Bush's policy goals, but she appreciates some of the methods he has used to achieve them.' So, would a Clinton victory next year be a repudiation of Karl Rove politics or the perpetuation of them?"

One more thing. :-)

I haven't seen any explanations of why compaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, a Chicago native with an alderman brother, so underestimated Barack Obama. She's seen him in action for years. For that matter, Hillary claims she's still close with the friends she made in Park Ridge. All these connections, and yet Iowa came as a 'surprise' to the Clinton campaign? That just doesn't make sense to me.

There's been a lot said about the shameful way Bill Clinton is attacking Obama. But if I recall it was Michelle Obama that fired the first volley over the Clinton's bow back in August when she said, "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." That's about as personal as it get folks. What goes around comes around.

Today, the Clinton machine is eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.


All it will take is a Xerox machine, a tape recorder, or a video set-up.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of Nation magazine Katha Pollitt''s article on Bill Clinton''s alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt). Politely distribute it as a leaflet.

Take too, one of the original Washington Post stories on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/
.htm). Use this one as a leaflet as well; please be polite.

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ... And make sure you can play it loudly. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

Share these with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.


FROM THE POLLITT COLUMN OF 1999 --it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. For six years too many progressives have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt, whether it was their ill-founded hope that he wouldn't sign the Personal Responsibility Act or the equally ill-founded skepticism about the existence in an unlaundered state of a certain blue dress. We've seen Jesse Jackson hailing "our President" as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending--wittily, tirelessly--the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.

I agree with you Eric Zorn, Barack needs to go plural. But he needs to go specific, too. I like his broad speeches but it was refreshing to hear Bill in South Carolina delve deep into the issues. I know all of Barack's speeches by heart, now i want to hear him speak at length on the issues.

i am tired of the Clintons. Please, no more of them.

I have never seen such deceitful and manipulative political behavior as I have over the past week by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Both Bill and HIllary should be ashamed of the way they have pilloried Obama. What a shameful way for an ex-President to be acting.

People need to see that the Clintons will lose to the Republican party because they have split the base. If Obama is bullied out, I am voting for Bloomberg and I could see a Bloomberg/ Obama ticket saving my great country. I never thought that my crazy liberal mind would be so upset at Bill Clinton, he is far worse than Hillary. Even if it is intentional.

Hillary Clinton cares about the environment? What are you basing this on? I think you need to review her voting record as Senator, which reveals quite the opposite: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

She is bought and sold by corporate interests, and corporate is not interested in the environment. There is no money there.

Obama would probably be just as bad, though.

I feel like it is 2004 all over again. No good choices.

This is a great article. I guess from the reader comments above the ends justify the means. That is the very point against the Clinton's. When you are willing to distort the truth and use dirty politics as long as you reward it then it continues. Being divisive will not move this country forward. I hope that Obama can get back on his unifying message and not have to react to these baseless attacks. I would vote for Obama. If Hillary wins the primary, I predict at least 4 more years of a Republican president.

I know if Hillary wins the primary, I will vote for either an Independent or a Republican (I assume it will probably be McCain).

Does he have a choice? Please. Bill is no ordinary man. You can't just ignore him. Why? Because if somebody made an offer to you Eric, to see Bill Clinton, you'd probably take it. And if he spouts off something about Obama at every luncheon, and the press covers that too, you have absolutely no choice.

I'm voting for Obama. At least I will know I am voting for the ethics of the man, instead of which way the wind in blowing this week. It is time for us to look to the future, instead of dwelling on the past.




Bill is for Hillary because he knows she is the best person around to lead America now. We must believe him because he was a very good President; therefore, his recommendations are worthwhile.

I am for Hillary because I know the success of the 90's is partly owed to her. She is bright and energetic. You must believe me because I can assure you that not to vote for Hillary now is equivalent to voting for a third term for ...the Republicans.

Thanks, EZ, for reminding people what the headlines were like for two years. I wish people would go back to those "happy 90's memories" and re-read the newspapers. You can see all the thunderclouds coming: NAFTA job loss, disagreement with Europe on saving the environment (Bill thought it would hurt the US economy), Al Qaeda making noise over and over again, sexual harassment laws being used repeatedly against the Clintons themselves, a red carpet into the White House for any Republican who promises not to soil the carpet.

At the NY Times today, "Two Presidents are worse than one."

And in their self-flagellating endorsement of Hillary, we find these gems:

"Hillary Clinton, ... at times harsh-sounding..."

"'Firstness' is not a reason to choose. ..That false choice ... raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, [has] tarnished the campaign."

"Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of resume."

"Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue."


"...but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation."

THAT is an historically tepid endorsement.

Let me be the first to admit I am quoting selectively. Go ahead and read the whole thing, and while you are at it, have a listen to Obama's full remarks about Reagan, so you can see that the Clintons are not as forthcoming as I have just been.

Still, I think this is the weakest, most pathetic endorsement I have ever read. Exactly how they cling to their final Clinton bias is a real sleight of rhetorical hand, but of course, they are her "hometown" paper. Look for the Chicago Tribune to have no such reservations when they endorse Obama.

I think that he should get out of politics... Man this fool is worse than Bush... Try again in 8 years,dummy

Regardless of the impact of her husband, it doesn't appear that Hillary can stand on her own. The Republican party will have a field day with this.

But on a more personal level, I myself am very disgusted with the way the two Clintons have managed themselves over the past years. Their poor personal ethics have significantly tarnished the image of the Democratic party. And they are simply embarassing to watch. I'm tired of it.

How are we supposed to teach ethics to children, businesspeople in our country when we have such unbelievably poor role models?

With all the talk about getting things done on day one, I think the far better thing to do is to make us honest on day one. Allow the GOOD people of America to believe there is hope for them again.

I'm anxious about the touch screen voting system they have down there. I hope it is tamper proof, but more than that a whole bunch of them failed in the Republican primary. The touch screens also leave no paper trail. I wonder if they will be having exit polls?

The last poll done showed Obama had widened his lead over Clinton - wider than 10 points - something like 13 or 15. In that sample 93% or so were decided. I would find it a bit incredible, to say the least, if the polls were so wrong again.

It is coming out now that part of what may have swayed a number of women against Obama at the last minute in New Hampshire was a letter drop that inaccurately stated Obama's pro-choice position. A woman who had supported Clinton has made a You Tube video, saying she now supports Obama because she was so disgusted at the dirty trick pulled by the Clinton campaign to tell lies about his position just prior to voting. It seems this might have been what drew the women away instead of the Clinton tears.

I hope we don't have a pattern of this going around the country - where people are duped into voting for the Clintons through lies only to find them out to be people unworthy of supporting after the fact.

Whatever the case, it seems that the Clintons are leaving a trail of disillusionment and disgust wherever they go.

It is a shame that horrible letter drops where sent around South Carolina that sought to cast doubt on Obama and appeal to the fears of South Country folk. These letters claimed he was a Muslim, trying to bring the US down from the inside out, citing his name and saying that he was sworn into the White House on the Koran. Of course, we know this isn't true - but poor folk living in rural areas, without access to the internet are particularly prone to these kinds of messages.

There is a really ugly under-belly coming up through this race, for all to see, the bigotry, the fear and how some people feed and manipulate this. This can only be a destructive influence in society, perpetuating division which allows those with our best interests not at heart to take advantage of the American people. I hope that people can rise above being manipulated by bigotry and fear because they actually end up being the victims to the people who create division.

If she has all the right experience and is the best person for the job, why have her and her husband sunk so low to repeatedly tell lies about Obama? Not just maybe tell lies, but tell lies and have it established that they are lies. Yet, when they are called out on it they continue to do it anyway - feign peace while they keep attacking, twist and turn reality blatantly. Why do they do this with such confidence? Because they are confident that the American people are too stupid to question them - and how could that not be insulting and inconsiderate of the American people?

I know they need to provide an argument that she could be the only possible choice, that no one else could get the job done but Hillary. But it would almost seem like there has never been any other candidate running before. People with different backgrounds to Hillary have been holding the role of President for hundreds of years. Every now and again the American people chose someone who uplifted their spirit and brought them together and it seems so needed at this time.

There is no doubt that Senator Obama is a terrific orator, but more than that he has also shown himself to be a very astute and intelligent man who understands some basic fundamentals - sees to the heart of core issues and pulls them forward - that Hillary doesn't seem to understand. His prescience in 2002 on Iraq shows a man not just with intelligence, but an ability to see the bigger picture and intuition for what will follow. He has also shown the ability to be self reflective and to own his errors. His honesty also shines through - these are a tremendous and rare set of qualities to find in a leader.

Hillary may be older and may have been in the White House before with her husband, but I am sure that we can find many instances where she has demonstrated poor judgment, has failed to take responsibility for her own mistakes and has been dishonest. Indeed, if we are to reflect on the behavior that has been demonstrated by both Hillary and Bill in recent weeks, we have seen dishonesty, an inability to take responsibility for their actions and waging a willfully destructive campaign that is fracturing the party base. I can only suppose that they have convinced themselves that the means justify the end, that they are the only ones that America needs at this time and that to me shows a level of egocentric fixation and tunnel vision that I quite frankly find quite disturbing.

The Clintons are telling you that they know better what you need than you know yourself and that like Obama you are naive little children for believing in the hope and unity that he is trying to inspire in people. And because you are little children who are naive and easily distracted by sparkly lights, they are going to have to lie to you for your own good.

Another thing to think about. Obama is drawing big support from the intellectual capital in your country. With these people inspired and on side, you will see a motivation for these people to go hard to work at supporting those changes, creating new jobs through enterprise, thinking outside the box to find workable solutions. This capital mobilized and energized would be very good for your country.

If they become disillusioned then expect a 'brain drain' to follow, where that capital will go overseas to strengthen other countries instead.

If Hilary gets elected it will be historic, but it won't be a true victory for women, because she will always have it said about her that she was only a figurehead for Bill. He will run the country. This is just a ploy for him to have another term.
Furthermore, I don't think her little crying jag was confidence building. I don't want a president who crys whenever things don't go her way. It did not show a strong leader to the rest of the World and believe me they are watching. America needs a strong, honest and hopeful leader in these troubled times.

The spectacle of a former President assuming the role of a Hit Man for his wife’s primary campaign is a repulsive disgrace. In the recent South Carolina debate Hillary Clinton attempted to dismiss the enormous influence and power of a former President’s advocacy by making the ridiculous assertion that each candidate had a passionate spouse supporting their cause.

Bill Clinton’s “passions” have been painfully well documented and have nothing to do with Michelle Obama. Senator Obama is committed to ending the partisan divide that has debilitated Washington and build a broad based, inclusive majority to drive change. In contrast, the Clintons are lusting for the opportunity to fan the flames of scorched earth politics, perpetuating the dysfunctional status quoi.

The Clinton machine will do whatever it takes; pander, distort, triangulate, fabricate, smear, lie, and pretend to cry, in order to hold onto and expand their power. As a former supporter of Bill Clinton, I will sit on the sidelines in November, as will millions of other Obama supporters, if his wife prevails in the Democratic primary. With 87% of Republicans strongly disapproving of her, she would energize their base to a degree that would be beyond Karl Rove’s wildest fantasy, thus ensuring another loss for the Democrats.

The country faces enormous challenges and can not afford to continue the twenty year Bush/Clinton infighting and gridlock that has polarized the country in a Red state/Blue state mentality. Barrack Obama will build a diverse coalition to bring people of every persuasion together in pursuit of the common good. In addition, he is uniquely suited to restore our nation’s tarnished global image and give an eloquent, inspirational voice to an America that we can once again be proud of. It is time to have the courage to elect Barrack Obama as the next President of the United States.

Politics of Personal Destruction, tsk tsk, tsk

The scene, a soft lit room with sofa and chairs.

Time, a few days before the democratic convention

Hillary Rodham is with Rahm Emanuel and Lanny Davis.

RE: I always thought it would be Steinberg

HR: No, It was the smart move. Zorn was always smarter

LD: What are we going do?

HR: After the convention, I will take care of all the family business. I have decided to make Rod Blago my running mate. Then, I will deal with Richey Daley, Dan Hynes, EZ and everyone else.

Perhaps Obama could campaign against something rather than someone -- an executive branch that is in danger of becoming dynastic.

Don't think Jay's (7:41am) comment is empty -- I am starting to hear the "moving out of the country" pacts among the creative class, just as I was hearing about "quitting the University and joining an Obama administration to try to do something for this country" a year ago.

But Derek 12:44p is right -- the people who want to deliver HRC back to the WH are not readers of online blogs. They read their email forwarded to them from their brother in Texas (the actual basis for the political beliefs of an old woman I recently ran into). They believe whatever they hear from like-minded but ill-informed people in their daily lives.

The most effective "street" argument I have found, which actually breaks the heart-over-mind Hillary-fixation, is to say Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... and then maybe Jed Bush, and then maybe the young hedge fund manager, Chelsea Clinton (see her face all over the papers now?).

"BC" will mean "Before Bush-Clinton" and "AD" will mean "After Dynasties".

Since these people still want a woman president, ask them to start counting the number of woman presidents of colleges, and woman governors of states. Tell them to look at Nancy Pelosi and Condi Rice. Is Hillary really their last best chance? Doesn't this country have women who are even better candidates for President than HRC?

BlogMoses: Open Letter to Barack Obama – The Challenge

Dear Senator Obama,

I am a former Democrat turned Independent voter living in California and I want believe in an UNITED States of America again. I have been watching this primary season very closely and I am encouraged by the intense energy, interest and participation of young voters, new voters and previously disaffected voters. I attribute this enthusiasm more to your candidacy than I do Senator Clinton’s or former Senator Edwards’. We have seen this in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and now, South Carolina.

I am not against either of your opponents. I love John Edwards’s message about the poor and working families in this country. I would have loved to see him at the top of the ticket in 2004. However, I think about his “fighting” message this election cycle and I wonder, do we want a President to be fighting lobbyists, fighting Republicans, fighting the insurance companies, fighting corporations, fight everyone for 4 years? If he spends all his time fighting all these interests, what we he actually get done? He will need some of these interests to achieve a lot of what he would like to do.

As for the junior Senator from New York, if she is to be the nominee and is somehow able to overcome her high negatives and polarizing persona, will she be able win in states that Senator Kerry lost in 2004? And let’s say she does etch out a one state victory, do we really need to start another dynasty in the White House? There were some great things about the 1990’s and there were some terrible things about the 1990’s, however the country would rather not rehash those battles for another 4 more years. Another Clinton in the White House would mean more fighting with the Republicans who would in turn stall any agenda that she would try to push through further insuring that nothing gets done. And recent events have shown that the Clintons are only concerned about winning at all cost, the Democratic Party, the American people and the country be damned.

Senator Obama I have heard all of your speeches. You talk about MLK’s belief in “the fierce urgency of now” in your speech. So here is my challenge to you Senator. In the next debate (your most challenging format) in California on January 31, can you tell America from the heart why you want to be President? Why should Democrats make you the nominee of their party in 2008? What is your vision for the future of this country and how do your policy proposals support that vision?

I believe these are the essential questions to your candidacy. Could you articulate your vision in a clear, concise and compelling way speaking from your heart and not a stump speech like other candidates? If you can, I believe the Democratic Party will follow, and in turn the rest of the country. I feel the country is ready to be united again. There is a fierce hunger for it. Black, White, Latino, Asian, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, rich, poor and everyone else in between loves this country and would like to unite under one leader that represents them all whether they agree with them or not. Show the naysayers. Lead us. UNITE US. The country IS ready.



As a middle aged white guy who ealier today voted for Sen. John Edwards, is now feeling realy guilty for not voting for Sen. Obama. His speech was really presidential, touching every Americans with a unifying message. I truly now believe that he is the one we need to unify and heal this nation. My fellow Americans, whites, blacks, latinos, natives, asians etc., please dont make a mistake I made for not voting the person deserves to lead us at this moment. Please America make sure that race does not be a reason for choices in our votes. May God bless Obama and his campaign.

Why don't you all check out Ron Paul's agenda, and quit your blathering about the Clintons and Obama.
I've been pretty much a lifelong Democrat, but I think I am going to vote for Ron Paul.

ZORN REPLY-- Check out Ron Paul's racist, homophobic newsletters before you cast that vote, Jack.

Most of the repondents sound like the the Rush Limbaugh program from the 90's

Eric,it seems you've been pretty focused on the Dems - but I'm curious what you think about uber-Christian Huckabee's threat to sodomize anyone who thinks Arkansas' Confederate flag should be taken down (as reported in Chicago Tribune Quotes last week.)
I think if publicized this is Huckbees "Dean moment."

ZORN REPLY -- Well, that "threat" was fairly figurative don't you think? Jimmy Carter promised to kick Teddy Kennedy's ass back in 1980....I don't think we saw that as a literal, physical threat. Same here. .

"ZORN REPLY-- Check out Ron Paul's racist, homophobic newsletters before you cast that vote, Jack."

You are correct about this, EZ. Ron Paul is a "conservative" in tradition of Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin and Pat Buchanan. It amazes me how much support he gets from liberals. (which just reinforces my belief that liberals are idiots)

Sorry to hear you supposedly have regrets over throwing away your vote "colorless." But this voter is voting for Hillary.

I couldn't in good conscious vote for Senator Obama. I made that mistake once and won't be doing it again, ever.

Your post above apparently was written before South Carolina, although I did not see it until after. With the advantage of hindsight it seems even clearer that the last thing Obama needs is to focus on the best way to go negative.
The Clintons are at their best when they are attacked. That is the reason that Bill Clinton left office so popular.
Right now we see the Clintons diminishing themselves with their tactics. There is no reason to come up with reasons for democrats to rally around the Clintons again.
Obama needs to remove people's doubts about Obams with regard to experience and an ability to stand up to the Republicans in the fall. He does not have to try to take the Clintons down (either singular or plural). People's attitude towards them is pretty set. And oddly the consensus seems to be that people would be happy if they go away, but they don't like to see them attacked.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't see going plural as going negative. The Clintons are explicitly saying that an HRC victory would be a return of the Clinton years, meaning Obama is campaigning against Bill and HIllary.
Note, though, that Clinton's job performance ratings were very high when he left office, his personal ratings were very low.

Yes, I need to vet this guy Ron Paul. I only heard a few bits about how he wants to end foreign military adventures and do away with the IRS. I really haven't checked him out.
He certainly has a lot of support out here in Lemont and the surrounding area. His followers are putting leaflets on my front porch and on my car windshield while I'm at work at the big box store in Homer Glen.

I liked Huckabee when I first met him, too, but when I read his platform, I realized he was not for me at all.

Yeah, Jack O'B. Paul either has a lot of support in Lemont or one enthusiastic guy with a lot of signs. I suspect the latter, because I don't see too many signs for the guy outside of the immediate Lemont area. I guess we'll find out next Tuesday, though.

So how does one take advantage of a former President whose policies were popular but whose character was not without going negative? Obviously one cannot do it by attacking the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years.
One could attack NAFTA, but Obama does not seem to be particularly anti-free trade. In fact he is probably closer to Bill on this than Hilary is currently running.
So the relevance of Clinton's high performance ratings and low personal ratings only support campaigning against the pair if the idea is to go after them on character. And it is hard to go after people on character without going negative.
Perhaps you have some idea in mind of the positive way to go after a former president whose performance is popular but whose personal ratings are not. (And those appear to be overall poll numbers.) His numbers among democrats who will be voting in the primary are presumably higher on both counts).

ZORN REPLY -- The question has to be, if we had "The Clintons" for ill and good over 8 years in the 1990s, do we want "The Clintons" for four or 8 more years now? Their implicit promise is to bring back all that was good about those years, and if one just lets that stand one neglects to remind people of all that was bad; all that we might not like to return to. Somehow you have to ask voters to consider how much of what was good about the 90s was because of Bill Clinton, how much was in spite of him and how much was just a wave he was lucky enough to ride? Who benefited and who didn't? How much more could he have done if he hadn't dropped trou' into scandal? And so on. Obama's implicitly asking these questions when he says we should turn the page, etc. Constant and accurate references to his opponents as "The Clintons" ought to bring this issue to the forefront and invite balanced scrutiny. The more claims for Hillary based on Bill's record, the more important it becomes to look at that entire record. Maybe Democratic voters and then the country want or will settle for an attempt to return to those years. If so, Obama's toast anyway, so....

Mendacity. At a time when the Democratic nominee is a shoo-in, why are the candidates all stooping to negative tactics? Wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that all of them represent the majority of Americans' views, stop fighting and present a COHERENT discussion of their different takes on the pertinent issues? You know, give the voters a little credit for being able to make a rational choice instead of an emotional one based on superficial qualities like race and gender? They're only damaging themselves with this negative campaigning.
I think it's hilarious that the Clintons are now being derided as the mud slingers, when Hillary has been fielding slings and arrows from Edwards and Obama from the get-go. I've been hanging on Obama's every word, and I still haven't heard a clear explanation of his plans as president. Clinton showed some true class, grit and dedication to the cause in her responses during the NH debate. I can't wait to see what happens in the 1/31 debate.

Yes, he has to run against both Clintons. He also needs trustworthy surrogates to go after both Clintons just as hard as their surrogates are going after him. The Clintons are having some success in defining Obama as "the black candidate" rather than a candidate who happens to be black. He can't sit still and let that happen. Anyone who thinks that he can win simply by being issues-oriented, positive, and a "uniter" is being naive. He needs to throw some punches or he's going to get creamed. McCain and Romney are waiting on the other side and it's only going to get uglier if they sense that he's vulnerable to personal attacks. As an aside, Obama should be careful about how close he gets to Ted Kennedy. A close attachment to Kennedy will not play well in the general election.

You seem to be playing with words here. In one response you said, "I don't see going plural as going negative." Then when I asked you what going plural would actually look like you said, "if one just lets that stand one neglects to remind people of all that was bad".

What is the difference between reminding people of all that was bad, and going negative?

I have no problem with going negative on moral grounds. My problem is that in this particular election when Obama is seen as going negative (as with "you are nice enough") he loses and when the Clintons are seen as going more negative, he wins. (And note in both cases there was a late swing significantly altering the results).

But how can one have a discussion of whether it makes sense for Obama to go negative in this way if you are debating what "is" means?

Going plural only makes sense if it is part of going negative. Maybe the case could be made for Obama going negative, although so far the evidence all seems against. I don't see the value of arguing that Obama should go plural as a way of hiding that that means he should go negative. It was not long ago you were openly advocating he go negative.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not saying he should start randomly attacking Bill Clinton's weaknesses. Going plural means simply referring to his opponents, the Clintons. He doesn't have to do the pitiless dissection unless he's attacked, in which case he or his surrogates respond appropriately with facts/observations that cover BOTH Bill and Hillary. They are quite plainly offering themselves as a package deal, and, as I noted, if the electorate wants that there ain't no stopping them. But Obama has to test their hypothesis hard that this is what the people want.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group