Share
In recent weeks, Bill Clinton has resorted to desperate measures to stump for his wife on the campaign trail.
In fact, some of his tactics have been quite controversial. He has even been accused of spewing racially insensitive remarks aimed at Sen. Barack Obama. Even high-profile members of the Democratic Party have denounced the former president's actions.
After Hillary Clinton surprisingly lost the Iowa Caucuses, his rampage began. In referring to Obama's campaign he said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen." Even though it sounded like he was belittling the Illinois senator's bid for president, he later clarified that he was speaking of Obama's record on Iraq. The statement was the first of a huge onslaught that would continue for weeks.
Although the comment was only moderately controversial, the remarks snowballed, becoming more divisive as time passed. On the day of the Nevada primary, the first-man-to-be accused Obama's campaign of registering new voters only if they promised to vote for its candidate.
Once the race moved to South Carolina, the comments became racially charged. In anticipation of a huge Obama victory in the state, Clinton dismissed the eventual landslide win because of South Carolina's large black population. He stated that Jesse Jackson won there in 1988 and was not ultimately the nominee.
Whether or not his comments were intentionally racially motivated, some well-respected Democrats would rather Bill Clinton keep his mouth shut. South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, hinted that he thought the former president was crossing the line.
Party insiders said Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama came after the longtime senator contacted Clinton to tell him to tone down the rhetoric.
And Al Sharpton, in an appearance on "The View," basically said that it was time for Bill Clinton to shut up.
Essentially, this sequence of events illustrates what the American public already knew -- the Clintons will do or say anything to get elected. While Hillary has not been at the forefront of this assault on Barack Obama, there's no question that her husband's strategy has been well thought out and carefully calculated.
In fact, these low blows are nothing new. Not too long ago, an official from the Clinton campaign publicly questioned whether Barack Obama was once a drug dealer. Although the campaign quickly distanced itself from the comments, the racial undertones continued.
While Bill Clinton may not have intended to inject race into the campaign, he did it. The media coverage shifted from the credentials of the two major Democratic candidates to their races and genders.
No one really knows if the strategy was planned or if the former president was just shooting from the hip. However, what is clear is that Bill and Hillary Clinton will stoop to the lowest of levels to get back into the White House.
Leave a comment 18 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I don't understand the inherent problem with Bill's comment about Obama winning South Carolina. I realize that it might not be the most tactful thing to say, and it sounds more like a reassurance he should give to Hillary in private, but I fail to see how it is racist. His comparison to Jesse Jackson winning SC in the past demonstrates to me that his intent was to point out that the state has voted disproportionately in favor of a previous black candidate who was not as highly supported by the country at large. Everyone knows that Obama would have been in trouble had he lost South Carolina, so Clinton's statement, to me, is not news.
Reply to this Top
I don't see a problem with his comments either. I think they are grounded in the fact that Obama hasn't accomplished anything, except getting elected. What has he done for the State of Illinois? Has he drafted or participated in bi-partisan legislation in the Senate? He is a great orator....but talk is cheap. Remember the last person that said "I'm a unite-r, not a divider." He became the decide-r. (Wow, you actually watch the View and listen to Al Sharpton?!? I know sometimes things are slow in Blacksburg, but c'mon...)
Reply to this Top
The anti-clinton train roles on. One can only conclude that the Republican party is filled with loathing, vengeful, petty people. They carried a grudge against John Kerry for over 20 years, they character assassinate people from their own party that disagree with them, they even demonize their own leading candidate John McCain, who once dared to disagree with a few of choice Republican policies, disregarding the fact that his picture hangs in the hall of the U.S. Naval Academy near Jimmy Carter as both won Medals of Honor. It's as if the Republican mindset is 'eat our young, the consequences be damned.' Clinton is a man, he has failings, we all do. But when it came to running American, he did a fantastic job, his record of accomplishments is long and robust. Comparing it to George W. Bush's record, you would think George Bush was a Manchurian candidate sent to destroy American from with financially and diplomatically. Hillary Clinton is a leading candidate for Democrats; I have watched puzzled how the press has repeated indicated her defeat, and been completely off base. Watched how they give over-whelming coverage to Obama and his success, but ignore Hillary for the most part - yet she continues to win. The people know Hillary has one thing Obama will never have, clout and experience which give her the strength to negotiate with and triumph over entrenched congressional interests out for their own personal gain. Think hard as to why so many long time Congressional members are backing Obama, it's not because he is the best, it is because he is someone they can manipulate, just as they backed George W. Bush as someone they could manipulate. Obama has no seniority, is a new comer to the game, he has no clout, nothing to bargain with, and will not be able to get anything done without working with those in Congress. He will fail as president because of that reason; when the time comes to get things done, no one owes him anything, he has no leverage over anyone, and will not get done what needs to be done. Think harder why Hillary continues to win among older Americans, seniors, women, and labor. Because she is tried, tested, experienced, has been fighting the good fight for a longer time, and has many allies at her charge to make sure things get done that need doing. Obama has none of this. Obama is a good speaker, has high ideals, and passion, but these things do not prevail in the real world. Experience, allies, and leverage are what give one power to move people and things. Hillary has these things, and more.
Reply to this Top
Then I'm all for Obama to take the nomination. Hillary has the power to move this country, but I'd rather see the US stand inert for 4 years than see it taken in her direction. Also, Staffer, for an interesting alternative to your take on the Clintons, please read http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/01/18/column__do_not_be_fooled_by_the_clintons_again.
Reply to this Top
Wow, Al Sharpton telling a former two-term and wildly successful President that it is time to shut up? Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle....never mind. I don't want to be accused of injecting race into the issue.
Reply to this Top
don't be such a naive little child.
Reply to this Top
well now the blue team has a woman and a black guy, and the red team has an old guy and a couple of religious wackos. this should be fun.
Reply to this Top
bxl, for once we are in complete agreement!
Reply to this Top
Staffer, neither Jimmy Carter nor John McCain were awarded the Medal of Honor.
Reply to this Top
Staffer, everything you say about Obama could be - and was - said about Bill Clinton was running for office in '92 (maybe you're too young to remember). George H.W. Bush was far more experienced than Bill but I doubt you'd say he had a good presidency. You laud Clinton for his accomplishments (which consisted basically of not screwing up and getting caught committing adultery) even though he had less national political experience than Obama does now. And what exactly are Hillary's qualifications? Oh, yes. She slept with the President (or at least in the same house he did) for eight years. But hey - she has the support of older Americans AND seniors! Running for president on her husband's coattails - now THAT'S a platform every self respecting feminist should get behind!
Reply to this Top
Apparently serving 2 terms as Senator for New York doesn't count for qualifications (while winning 32 of the 41 NY counties that went to Bush in '04). New Yorkers know that she can get things done. And Bill's accomplishments as the "President" of Arkansas were well known...what has Obama done? Oh yeah, got elected in Illinois and then started running for President. I doubt he'll carry Illinois in a national election. They know that he's done nothing. The Presidency is about getting things accomplished for the people. She has proven that she can. It requires bi-partisanship to get things done. She is of the same mind as the former President, who had a number of prominent Republicans as part of his cabinet...choose the best person for the job, regardless of party. Obama talks a mean game. We have yet to see anything. Your misogyny is apparent in your last sentence. Go back to your cave.
Reply to this Top
She hasn't served two terms in the Senate. She served one term and then started running for president. It is a fact that Hillary did not win her Senate seat on her own merit. You would probably have never heard of her had she not been Mrs. Bill Clinton. She is from Illinois, then was wife of the governor in Arkansas, then wife of the president and then decided to run for the Senate from ... New York. Her shamelessness was exemplified by her abandoning her "home town" Cubbies, who she had always said was her favorite team, to claim she'd always been a Yankees fan. As far as bipartisanship goes, are you kidding me? The deep and intense loathing most Republicans have for her (and the over 40% of Americans who consistently say they could never vote for her in national polling) would make her less than ideal as a uniter. Lastly, I'm sorry you failed to understand the irony in my last sentence. I'm not a misogynist just because I don't care for Hillary Clinton and my dislike of her has nothing to do with her anatomy. It's because she is opportunistic, manipulative, condescending, calculating and her gut reaction to almost everything is to lie. I think a woman in the White House would be a nice change of pace - just not this one. Nancy Pelosi, while I don't like her politics, at least became Speaker based on her own accomplishments. I can respect her. Not so much with Hillary oh-they're-all-picking-on-me Rodham the-Presidency-is-my-natural-entitlement Clinton.
Reply to this Top
All I had to do was read your first 3 sentences and your insult directed to over 3 million voters of the state of New York (fyi-that's 67% of the voters)who apparently believe that her position as Senator is merited. And you should probably have inserted the word "unpatriotic" or "whacked" in between "most" and "Republicans" as those who have loathing for her. They loathe her, in their most Christian way, because she refuses to allow the US to turn into a theocracy, ruined by the minority of hate and fear mongering that has made us the laughingstock of the Democratic world. It's great to know that your worldview is based upon someone's shifting professional sports' team loyalties.
Reply to this Top
First of all, Hillary won her initial Senatorial election with 55% of the vote in New York. She had over a year to campaign, whereas her opponent, Rick Lazio, had less than six months to raise money and campaign after Rudy Giuliani pulled out of the race because of his prostate cancer diagnosis. She won her second term is a landslide, yes, because a) she was an incumbent and b) she spent more money that any other candidate running for the US Senate. Also, I wasn’t insulting New York voters, your juvenile accusation notwithstanding. I was merely pointing out that prior to her initial election to the US Senate she had no individual record of her own achievements. I defy you to name something of substance she accomplished that did not have to do with Bill Clinton. I am not suggesting she was not capable of it – she’s a frighteningly intelligent woman - only that she did not. The reason her intelligence frightens me (and my wife, a liberal Democrat who considers herself a feminist) is because it is not matched with a set of ethics. You seem to think that only “unpatriotic†“whacked†Republicans, in their Christian way, dislike her. Do you really believe that approximately 2/5 of Americans fit this description? The most recent poll, A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Jan. 10 - 13, 2008, shows she has a 48% unfavorable rating. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Jan. 9-12, 2008. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Dec. 14-17, 2007 reported 44% as either somewhat negative (12%) or very negative (32%). A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted Oct. 19-22, 2007 reports 44% negative. I could go on, but no other candidate comes close to the consistently negative ratings as she. There are a lot of reasons for it, but I can tell you where she lost my wife’s respect. My wife believes Hillary should have divorced Bill after the Lewinsky fiasco. Actually, she thinks Hillary should have kicked his ass out after it became apparent he was a serial adulterer. My wife’s disgust isn’t (only) that she stayed with Bill, but her reasons why. She believes, as do a lot of Americans, that she stayed with Bill because she wants to be President. Lastly, my world view is not based on her shifting sports team loyalties per se. Actually, my world view is based on having seen a good bit of the world and has sweet FA to do with either Hillary Clinton or her sports teams. My problem with her wearing a Yankees hat on Letterman is the fact that she has no loyalties at all. She will say and do anything to get elected. A principled person would have said, “I’ve been a Cubbies fan all of my life – deal with it.†A principled person would have.
Reply to this Top
First of all, Hillary won her initial Senatorial election with 55% of the vote in New York. She had over a year to campaign, whereas her opponent, Rick Lazio, had less than six months to raise money and campaign after Rudy Giuliani pulled out of the race because of his prostate cancer diagnosis. She won her second term is a landslide, yes, because a) she was an incumbent and b) she spent more money that any other candidate running for the US Senate. Also, I wasn’t insulting New York voters, your juvenile accusation notwithstanding. I was merely pointing out that prior to her initial election to the US Senate she had no individual record of her own achievements. I defy you to name something of substance she accomplished that did not have to do with Bill Clinton. I am not suggesting she was not capable of it – she’s a frighteningly intelligent woman - only that she did not. The reason her intelligence frightens me (and my wife, a liberal Democrat who considers herself a feminist) is because it is not matched with a set of ethics. You seem to think that only “unpatriotic†“whacked†Republicans, in their Christian way, dislike her. Do you really believe that approximately 2/5 of Americans fit this description? The most recent poll, A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Jan. 10 - 13, 2008, shows she has a 48% unfavorable rating. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Jan. 9-12, 2008. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted Dec. 14-17, 2007 reported 44% as either somewhat negative (12%) or very negative (32%). A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted Oct. 19-22, 2007 reports 44% negative. I could go on, but no other candidate comes close to the consistently negative ratings as she. There are a lot of reasons for it, but I can tell you where she lost my wife’s respect. My wife believes Hillary should have divorced Bill after the Lewinsky fiasco. Actually, she thinks Hillary should have kicked his ass out after it became apparent he was a serial adulterer. My wife’s disgust isn’t (only) that she stayed with Bill, but her reasons why. She believes, as do a lot of Americans, that she stayed with Bill because she wants to be President. Lastly, my world view is not based on her shifting sports team loyalties per se. Actually, my world view is based on having seen a good bit of the world and has sweet FA to do with either Hillary Clinton or her sports teams. My problem with her wearing a Yankees hat on Letterman is the fact that she has no loyalties at all. She will say and do anything to get elected. A principled person would have said, “I’ve been a Cubbies fan all of my life – deal with it.†A principled person would have.
Reply to this Top
There you go again. Insulting the landslide voters of NY because they could be convinced by advertising. Wrong. They voted for her second term precisely because of her accomplishments, not because of money spent on the campaign. As far as you and the judgmental missus goes...maybe we should judge everyone by the success of their personal lives? You got a divorce?, you're fired! No, wait, you stayed with your cheating spouse?, you're fired! Your kid is in trouble in school?, you're fired! You bought a Toyota, and I hate Toyotas, you're fired! Hey, this is fun! All of my voting choices are easy now.
Reply to this Top
Rolling Train, I think you've been had. You've found an argumentative blogger who refuses to answer your points logically and is just trying to get your goat.
Reply to this Top
Au contraire, mon frère. Invective does not beget logic. If logical points were made, they would be addressed logically. It is fairly clear that Train votes on "feelings" which is ok by me. After all, it is his vote. He just doesn't want to give a US Senator her due. If it's such an easy state to get elected, maybe Rudy will give it another try. That would be fun.
Reply to this Top