Letters to the Editor
-
AKA Smith
Quote what Bill Clinton actually said and tell me where you see all the stuff that blogger are saying exists in it. Damn it! You have to look at the text itself a little bit. You just can't pretend it doesn't exist and spin a story using other source material.
Did you see the links in Glenn's post? He links directly to a video of Bill making the comment in response to the question about Obama's success despite having to battle both Bill and Hillary. Here it is, for convenience: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/bills-spin-obam.html
Bill says exactly what we have been saying he said, and then he tries to perfume it with a veil of flattery about Obama's running a good campaign. Nobody's twisting his words. They are what they are, and that's all I've been talking about here.
Also, when you watch that video of Clinton making the remarks, note the head-wagging condescension. He obviously did not mean the comment as a compliment.
-
Overboard
I think that maybe you are overreacting Glenn.
Let's all take a deep breath here and stop piling
on each other. I'll work for and vote for whoever
is the Democratic candidate for President. However,
the piling on against Bill Clinton reminds me of how
similar some of the blogs have become to the MSM, the
"villagers" if you will, in the relentless attacks against
both of the Clintons.
Comparing him to Chris Matthews is a clever device, but
completely uncalled for. I think that maybe all of that
negative craziness from the super senstive Obamabots about
some of your past blogs on Hillary's campaign has triggered
this preposterous comparison to Chris Matthews. It's very
disappointing to say the least.
-
@ Xlp Thlplylp
Bill Clinton would have been a damned fool to respond to the implicit sexism of him vs. Elizabeth and Michelle as spouses. He knows he's the Big Dog and he is no fool. Too much injection about sexism into the race can only hurt Senator Clinton.
-
Sarcasm doesn't become you, Glenn
That's all.
-
he has convinced White voters a Black man with passion and grit is not to be feared but followed...
Now I know you are a Republican Thrasher; if white voters are told that they need a black leader in order to cope with the new world order the Republicans could nominate Hitler and win in a landslide, even in the blue states.
-
DCLaw
Did you see the links in Glenn's post? He links directly to a video of Bill making the comment in response to the question about Obama's success despite having to battle both Bill and Hillary. Here it is, for convenience: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/bills-spin-obam.html
-- DCLaw1
I was going to point that out to that person, but it's just getting exhausting reading the same thing over and over on here today by people who are missing the picture in one way or in several ways.
-
DC: You're talking about "propriety"? Whose?
And I suggest again that this whole Clinton Flap business is ultimately a generational thing. Which, beneath all the thrust and parry, is what the Democratic primary campaign is about. Is the torch going to be passed or not?
I think the Clintons know that as well as anybody.
And I think a case can be made that the Obama campaign has been really cruel to Old Folks like Hillary and Bill. He gives no quarter to their revival of gerintocracy. He's constantly slamming Hillary for her insiderism, for her representation of the status quo, for her old ideas, her tired old nostrums, her errors in judgement.
I don't really see Hillary or Bill responding to that cruelty at all.
What we see instead is a kind of patronizing from the Clinton campaign that can be very grating. It's sometimes interpreted as veiled or not so veiled racism, but that isn't what it is -- at least not the way I see it. Instead, it's like being patronized by a rich old uncle or aunt. When you're almost 50 years old.
I don't buy the idea that the Clinton campaign is race-baiting. That case has not been made.
On the other hand, which is less "proper?" The Obama campaign's cruelty or the Clinton campaign's patronizing?
To my way of looking at it, they're both doing what they believe will win the nomination. And I'm not judging one as worse than the other. I wish they'd both migrate to a higher plane.
Meanwhile, what about that Edwards fella? He seems to have some good ideas...
-
Waste of time evaluating Bill Clinton's agenda.. We must be about shaping Obama's agenda.
The DEMS will be the party of the country's next president. Hillary and Bill are both trapped by thier past. Glenn's excercise in peeling back Bill Clinton's true nature is old news and has little if any currency now..
The real question is when does Hillary realize she is not the answer but the problem. Now is the time to shape the outcome of this election boring chatter about the antics of Bill is already old news...
-
AKA Smith
You do realize don't you that saying you are even-handed in your criticisms over all does not mean that you have proven your case in this particular instance?
Yes, agreed - the fact that I've defended both Clinton and Obama (and criticized each) absolutely does not prove that I'm right on this point.
I do think, though, that it proves that I'm capable of critically evaluating the "media narrative." It proves that I'm not some Clinton-hater who just jumps on any media cliche about the Clintons. It proves that I'm not operating out of some driving malice towards the Clintons -- and it disproves most of the other accusations made about my motives.
Could it be that some of us have gotten a little tired of the media suggesting how we should interpret the merest comments by polticians in a certain way? We can all of us read and listen for ourselves. Provide the text and there will be none of us in the dark as to Bill Clinton's actual words.
I linked to the video of Clinton's comments precisely so that everyone can decide for themselves. Is there some reason why you're incapable of listening to that?
The problem with dogwhistling, if there is any, is that it is pitched so that only the dogs can hear it.
Huge numbers of Clinton lovers heard the dog whistle. How do you explain that?
I think, Glenn, that you may be the victim of the circumstance that many of us are sick, sick, sick of hearing all this race/gender blah, blah, blah here at Salon. There has been a great plenty of it.
Were you saying the same thing when I spent a week writing about the unfair and hateful treatment of Hillary by the media, including my belief that much of it had a misogynistic element to it?
I like you better when you deal with constitutional issues and don't try to parse polls (no proof!) deconstruct a candidate's or surrogate's merest utterances (again, no proof!) and then (sure as the sun will raise) you will at another time criticize the MSM for doing pretty much the same thing.
Did you say this when I was writing in defense of Hillary and when I was criticizing Obama?
Also, the title of my post usually indicates the topic. The first paragraph almost always does. They repealed the law requiring you to read every word I write, so feel free to skip the topics you don't like.