Sirotablog

David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.

  • August 25, 2008 8:42 AM

    Convention Dispatch: Does It Always Have to Be About the Clintons?

    Does it always - ALWAYS - have to be about the Clintons?

    This is the question on Day 1 of the Democratic convention. About a week and a half ago, the Denver Post previewed the convention with a story about how the Clinton forces are attempting to make the first two days of this convention a celebration of the Clintons - and Clintonism. As one Clinton ally told the newspaper, "We want to make this all about her."

    Now, on the first day of the Democratic convention, top Clinton aide Howard Wolfson has taken to the pages of The New Republic to publish a screed demanding Barack Obama use the convention to make amends with Bill Clinton. Wolfson writes:

    "There is still work to do on the Bill Clinton front. He feels like the Obama campaign ran against and systematically dismissed his administration's accomplishments. And he feels like he was painted as a racist during the primary process."

    As disgusting and disingenuous as this is, it is pretty predictable. The Clintons are doing everything they can to make this convention all about them - and to absolve themselves from the substantive criticism of both Clintonism and Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign.

    Yes, many of the Obama campaign's themes indict the Clinton record - and rightly so, because so much of the country has turned against Clintonism. In places like Wisconsin and Indiana, Obama turned the primary into a referendum on the Clinton-backed NAFTA-style trade policies that have decimated the heartland swing-states that will decide the 2008 election. According to polls by the Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine and CNN, those policies are now wildly unpopular - and Obama is capitalizing on the populist anger they have fostered.

    No, Bill Clinton was not "painted as a racist" - he was a racist during the campaign. He famously downplayed Obama as a new Jesse Jackson - a not-so-subtle attempt to tie Obama to all the unfair and racially-charged animosity regularly directed at Jackson. The Clinton campaign told the Associated Press that Obama was "the black candidate." And perhaps worst of all, Bill Clinton claimed the Obama campaign "played the race card on me" - a clear attempt to stoke the usual anti-affirmative action backlashes that mark so many campaigns.

    That Clinton's top surrogates are now saying Obama's major task is to appease Bill Clinton - rather than, say, win the election - shows just how egomaniacal the Clintons really are.

    What Obama should respond with is a very simple directive: President Clinton, please exit stage Right.

    Posted by David Sirota
    Permalink | Comments (4) | del.icio.us | digg

Discussion

  • Melinda [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Loveyameanit, but when you say:

    That Clinton's top surrogates are now saying Obama's major task is to appease Bill Clinton - rather than, say, win the election - shows just how egomaniacal the Clintons really are.
    you're suggesting that the Clintons are a unit and that Hillary Clinton isn't really her own person. Likewise with the NAFTA comment (I know she's changed her position on NAFTA and I know you've posted that you don't believe her, and I regard that as your problem, not hers).

    Anyway, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton: two different people. I agree she should have made a public statement denouncing the racist stuff Bill said during the campaign, and she didn't. That doesn't make them the same person supporting the same policies and making the same arguments.

    Posted on August 25, 2008 10:30 AM
  • FLGibsonJr [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    I agree with Melinda that the Clinton's are two different people, and my thoughts are that she would have made a better President than he did.

    However, I never bought the Obama/Media spin that Bill Clinton was trying to be racist in SC. The Obama surrogates were subtly pushing the race card on the night of the NH primary, in anticipation of SC. I saw it happen.

    Though I am not going to vote for him I have to hand it to the Obama campaign for their political skills. He is really the uber-Bill Clinton candidate, and is in fact more skilled at triangulating than Bill Clinton. He may have lost populist voters like me and members of my family, but I am sure they have already figured out that they are gaining more votes on the right than they are losing in other areas. Just as an example he is now being publicly supported by some of the most visible Republican families such as the Nixon's and Eisenhower's. The management of Goldman-Sachs, the epitome of multi-national corporate America and as strongly a "free" trade group that could be imagined are now his cheerleaders. So Obama may have lost many of the populists in this country, but you can be certain that the number crunchers are assured that they are being more than made up by supporters on the right.

    Regards,

    Posted on August 25, 2008 6:15 PM
  • cdupree [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Melinda is right to say that Hillary is her own person. My impression is that Hillary would have been a better candidate had Bill been on the moon. In real life, though, while they aren't a unit, they are a package deal; you can't get one without the other.

    This is, of course, unfortunate for her. I suggested in a January post that Bill was unconsciously sabotaging Hillary's campaign. He needs to be the Big Dog, and if she won he would be Second Dog.

    But I didn't take Mr. Sirota's post as claiming that Hillary isn't her own person. After all, he said "the Clinton forces are attempting to make the first two days of this convention a celebration of the Clintons - and Clintonism. As one Clinton ally told the newspaper, 'We want to make this all about her.' " That's different from saying Hillary directs or even wants this.

    She's stuck with two tricky issues. One is her loose-cannon husband. I don't think anyone believes he's a racist, but it's undeniable that he made racist comments during the campaign. He played the race card, then denied it, and accused Obama of having played it against him. His ego was probably her biggest campaign problem.

    The other issue is that she wants to run again. If she doesn't support Obama strongly enough and he loses, she'll alienate the Obamaniacs, thus dooming her future chances. If she supports him strongly and he wins, he'll probably be in office for eight years. In that time a new generation of Democrats will arise to challenge her.

    I think she's unable to rein Bill in, and his ego is destroying her standing. He needs the convention to praise him, but he's not praiseworthy, either now or when he was President. She's suffering from the backlash against him. I'm sorry for Hillary, but I have no sympathy for Bill. He deserves worse than he's getting.

    Posted on August 25, 2008 6:58 PM
  • JWVerez [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Both Obama and Clinton were the worst. It really doesn't matter which of them won that RIGGED primary. Neither one of them are anything close to populism. Nader would be gaining ground anyway and I'd still be looking forward to voting for him. Then again, if Obama hadn't won the primary, I often wonder if he would still be pandering to the "right" by now.

    Posted on August 26, 2008 7:58 AM

Join the Discussion

Post a comment