Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bill vs. Barack

Barack Obama thinks he is challenging Hillary Clinton to obtain the Democratic nomination for the presidency. However, Bill Clinton does not see it that way. He considers himself to be the leader of the Democratic Party, and he favors Hillary. Then this young upstart Obama comes along and disagrees. Bill attacks him, thus converting it to a Bill vs. Barack contest.

During the early days of the campaign, former President Bill Clinton occasionally complimented his wife when asked about her candidacy by reporters. OK. Then he made occasional visits on the campaign trail. Still somewhat acceptable. Now he is working full time on the campaign as a fierce attack dog - you know, the type of role usually assigned to the running mate of a president.

Throughout her candidacy Hillary has touted her experience. What experience? Is she talking about her experience as the First Lady? What did she do? She flopped on her healthcare plan and then traveled the world with Chelsea. Mainly she stuck with wayward Bill.

At the beginning, Bill said that Obama is a nice guy but not ready for prime time.

When the polls began to say something different, he started attacking Obama. Barack does not have experience as Hillary does. Again, what experience?

Lately Bill has been criticizing Barack's statements and claiming that the media is telling fairy tales about Obama. And he is getting red in the face every time he criticizes Obama.

Why is Bill Clinton so upset? As a smart politician - some say he is the best - he understands the lure of Barack Obama. He knows that Hillary's position on top is unsustainable as long as Obama has this wonderful reputation. So, the former president of the U.S. has decided to ruin Obama's reputation.

I am appalled at how far down he has already gone and I am upset that he will go down further in pursuit of his goal of getting Hillary to be president. Too bad. Bill could have been a great president. Just as he squandered his talent during his presidency he is now squandering his good name.

As a great political talent, Bill should know that if Barack withstands this onslaught by both Clintons, his wife will not make it, Bill's reputation will be tarnished and Obama would be a shoo-in to become the next president of the U.S.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 22, 2008 7:03 PM
Comment #243559


I’m pulling for Obama, too, and I hope Bill keeps at it. Most of the time he is hurting the Clinton campaign more than he is helping.

That said, I don’t think it is unfair for him to campaign for his wife. It would be surprising if he didn’t. The voters are not going to forget that he is an extremely interested observer.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 22, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #243567

I would only agree that William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States, needs to stay out of the media more. The other day GMA brought out an update on the worlds most famous corksoaker. It was like ABC/Disney was firing a warning shot.

Senator Obama is a little too familiar and condescending to the former First Lady of The United States. He calls her Hillary. She is more respectful to him. The media question about the first black POTUS was inappropriate, and his response was silly. The junior senator from Illinois feels oblige to engage in banter with jounalists who act friendly, but are really just looking for a way to create a controversy. That is his level of experience.

As for qualifications, they are both more qualified than the current occupant of the White House is after being President for seven years.
Many of the people who write articles here are more qualified than Bingo Bush. Administration is mostly a matter of who gets appointed.

Posted by: ohealy at January 22, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #243580

I wish Obama would ask Bill and Hillary what they knew and when they knew it concerning Sandy Berger taking classified documents out of the National Archives stuffed down his pants only to put them behind the wheel of a trailer in a construction site only to come retrieve them that night only to destroy them at home as he looked over documents preparing for what the 911 commission would need to know from the Clinton administration.

If Barak Obama would bring this up in just one debate, he would crush Hillary. If he does not and she wins, the topic will be used by the Republicans. He should definately play this ace in the hole!

Posted by: scott at January 23, 2008 1:43 AM
Comment #243590

Speaking as a Republican, with enemies like these who needs friends?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 23, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #243592

Scott, I don’t think you’re taking into account the rules that the Clintons operate under, or the extent to which their apologists in the media will cover for them.

Berger stole, hid, and burned documents having to do with the Clintons pre-9-11 actions. The Clintons literally laughed about it and the media paid it no attention at all. Why would anything change if Obama talked about?

The Clintons have been doing this kind of thing and worse for YEARS, and the only reason anybody cares now is that these tactics are being used against somebody even more liberal than they are.

Posted by: Liam at January 23, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #243594

I agree with you Paul. If the Dems really believe their agenda is whats best for America, then the candidates should stick with their own plans and let the Dem voters pick who will run.
Trying to one-up each other by highlighting the other persons negatives does nothing to help the party.

Not sure why you are appalled by his actions though, its standard operating procedure for the clintons. Has been for years.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2008 9:56 AM
Comment #243598

Hillary has left town but she forgot to take Bill with her. So from ground zero:

Bill V Barack

While you’re there scroll through some of Araill’s cartoons; they are pretty funny. Especially the shots at Kerry (17) and Kucinich (22).

My friend Warren and his collegues at The State endorsed Obama today mainly as vote against Clinton Inc.

“Hillary is very smart,” Associate Editor Warren Bolton agrees. But “I think she thinks she is the only one who has the answers.” Publisher Henry Haitz said the same thing, in almost the same words, a moment later.

Funny I had the same thought about McCain after the GOP debate….

Posted by: George in SC at January 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #243640

It becomes more clear each day that the Clinton machine will use any tactic, including race, to win the WH one more time. They don’t really give a shit if it destroys the party, the only thing they value is power. This is a traditional liberal view, they know best and only they can lead the sheep. Please, don’t tell us how smart Hillary is. We have all heard her dumb remarks and her pandering to the lowest common denominator. Politically smart, we’ll see, but it will be hard to govern with all the promises she has made should she actually win the WH which is doubtful. She is dividing her party with the racist remarks recently made and should she be the demo candidate many black voters will simply stay home.

Posted by: Jim M at January 23, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment #243642

whew—-finally people who are seeing what I am seeing! I am finding Hilary to be very much in the style of george bush——very pushy, very arrogant, only caring about becoming president and not caring how. I also think that maybe she will want the power of the presidency inflated and widened IF SHE is president. Her husband, who I thought had enormous potential, but who distracted this country way too long and too deep into his personal life and could have done a lot more as president if he hadn’t, is beginning to sound and look like a democratic dick cheney to me! and I am tired of them blaming and whining about everything they don’t like and thinking everyone is out to get them.

I know Obama is not perfect—-but he was trying to keep this conversation and discourse above all this. This is really sad——AND sadly, it makes his point as well—-when ronald reagan was around he did inspire his party and kept them together and had a clear and strong vision of his party that was so compelling that many independents and dems joined them. I think Obama can be that kind of president as well, and I think that is what he is trying to say to the clintons. But they don’t listen. I find her to be very polarizing and argumentative——not someone who brings people together—- although, like GWBush previously, she SAYS she is a consensus builder. I am very sad about how this is all going.

Posted by: judye at January 23, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #243647

You should be happy, not sad Judye.
hillary will bring this country together.
hillary will end the war and bring our troops home.
hillary will pay for your kids to go to college.
hillary will give you free healthcare.
hillary will stop torturing suspected terrorists.
hillary would never listen in on terrorist phone calls.
hillary would never invade Iran.
hillary will make the world love us again.

Now, how can all of that not make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #243653


Let me first say I am not a Hillary fan but am tired of the media’s obvious dislike of her and their efforts to show her in the worse possible light. I had been a Barack fan although I was concerned about his ability to articulate his points in a more concrete manner. He talks good but talk is cheap. Now I am tired of him being the media’s darling and them making him out to be the second coming.

It concerns me greatly what Barack said about Reagan. I certainly do not want another president like Reagan. I found him to be uncaring, unyielding, and I felt his economic policies were awful. He was an actor and was good at acting the part. To me Barack is playing games too. He/his campaign says negative and unflattering things about Hillary and it gets no coverage. The Clinton’s go on the attack and its poor Barack look how they are beating up on him. If he can’t handle this from the Clintons then he will never stand up to the republican smear machine. He can’t campaign on his experience so what is left-change. Had the media done their jobs and reported equally and as fairly for both Hillary and Barack maybe the Clintons would not have developed such a hard line position.

I don’t see the same style between Hillary and Bush. I think Hillary does care about this country and does want to be president to improve things for middle and lower income people. With that said I am concerned about her ties to corporations and the baggage she would bring to the white house. As for pushy-do you think Barack is pushy or is it that old double standard-Women are not allowed to be passionate or strong.
As for Bill he did not distract this country with his personal life, I am sure he would have rather all that go away. It was the republicans who distracted this country with their unabashed hatred of the Clintons and their desire to destory them and the country as well if thats what it took. In my opinion Dick Cheney is EVIL. I see no comparison between him and Clinton.

I have not seen anything in Hillary that would lead me to believe that she would try to inflate the presidency. Please support your thoughts on this-what makes you think this?

I don’t like the tone the campaigns have taken and hope they can tone it down a bit. However, I don’t hold the Clintons totally responsible for that. The media has inflamed this and Barack isn’t totally without blame.

The more I see of Barack the less I like him. So that leaves me with John Edwards and I have my issues with him as well which I won’t go into here. However, of the three I think he is someone I can support. Unfortunately he will not win.

I WILL support wholeheartedly whichever democrat wins the nomination. If it is Barack I hope he does not immulate Ronald Reagan, I would be afraid for our country if that came to pass again.

Posted by: Carolina at January 23, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #243656

I forgot to add: I addressed my comments mostly to judye because she was the most recent poster. But to all the Clinton haters here-what gives-I’m having a hard time telling the democrats from the republicans that post here. I have never understood the level of hatred people seem to have for the Clintons. I did well under Clinton as did much of the country. so place me in the 80% of democrats that liked him. That is not to say that I approve of everything that goes on with the Clintons. All presidencies have their coverups and scandals but nothing in the Clinton white house comes close to matching the evil-sickness that permeates the current adminstration.

Posted by: Carolina at January 23, 2008 7:10 PM
Comment #243685

RE: Carolina’s comment at January 23 2008 07:00, I kinda hope if it is Obama, that he does immolate Ronald Reagan. Preferably on the day of his inauguration next January… ROFLMAO…

Sorry couldn’t resist. No but seriously, Obama wasn’t praising the policies of the now sadly incombustible Ronald Reagan or the Republicans. Merely pointing out that they were good at expressing ideas and gaining a broad base of support, a useful skill in politics. Of course the Rovian electioneering of Billary will mean they’ll lustily gobble up such naive Obama honesty, and spit his words back at him, twisted so as to embarrass him, and confound an addled electorate.

The original post by Paul is spot on btw.

Two questions:

1) Has anyone else read this analysis of the Clintons in South Carolina, followed by Bill’s latest interjection? This is really unhealthy. But not as unhealthy as…

2) If Hillary becomes President and then goes on to be successfully re-elected. The Presidency will have been shared between two families for 28 CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Should Hillary become the nominee, surely even staunch Democrats would have to consider abstaining or even voting for a Republican rather than further entrench the notion of a ruling class, and see the US slip towards some sad state of oligarchy?

Or how about avoiding this Hobson’s choice? Don’t nominate a person whose candidacy seems to rest so squarely on the fact that they are from and of the ruling class. Just say no to Billary, give someone else a go eh?

Posted by: Bob Hope at January 24, 2008 4:13 AM
Comment #243688

There is a clear winner in the polls of this Clinton - Obama brawl. Edwards.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 24, 2008 5:29 AM
Comment #243697

Thank you Bob Hope for pointing out my poor spelling. I have never been a good speller. I meant to say emulate.

Posted by: Carolina at January 24, 2008 7:37 AM
Comment #243704

I don’t dislike Hillary because of how the media portrays her. Since when should we be listening to the media anyway? I dislike Hillary because of her tactics. I dislike Hillary because she touts negative campaigning as being fun. I dislike Hillary because whenever a question is asked of her, she talks around and around it, leaving me wondering what the original question was, and if it was ever answered in there somewhere. I want to hear answers, even if I don’t agree with them, not the same old political dribble. Sure, her answer sounded great, but did it answer anything? No. I hate that. I also can’t stand the way politicians point with their thumbs on their fists. Who thought of that stupid thing, and did they all have to go to school to learn it? (Ok, that last one was just a pet peeve lol)

As far as Bill goes, well, I did like him as a President, not so much as the first lady in waiting.

Posted by: TheKdd at January 24, 2008 11:26 AM
Comment #243715

Thanks Carolina, for your email and comments. I believe that Obama mentioned Reagan not that his policies or beliefs were to be emulated but that his ability to hold a vision and to basically move his party into a co-hesive group with a vision and to generate and hold ideas is to be respected. I think he has shown that he was/is totally against what Reagan stood for re: his policies and priorities. I think he was asking us and asking the dem party to also think about that—-having a vision, coming together, really standing for something and sticking to that vision.

I do think the dem party had become very fractured during/after Clinton, because of his sloppy personal life (come on, Carolina, you are not going to blame all the attention on Bill with his having sex with an intern in the oval office on the republicans, are you?). I think the dems have also not been behaving responsibly in terms of standing up to Bush re: the war, spending, etc. I think after 9/11 they got scared of standing up for principle.

and I think Al Gore would have won hands down if there wasn’t so much abvilalent feelings about Bill Clinton during that election. He was clearly so much more experienced, wise, intelligent and ready to be president than Bush.

I went to Bill CLinton’s inauguration in anticipation of clean good govt and I really liked and respected Hilary until the past 2 years. AND I do feel like her style is very reminiscent of Bush—not exactly like him—-not his values or priorities—-but his style—- I think she thinks that SHE is the one to get things done—-she does not work well with others—I don’t think she listens well if she does not agree with or like the other person—-I think she tends to be a little arrogant towards others (repubs, evangelicals, etc), and I think she has her own “good ol’ boy/girl system.” I think she is so wanting to be president that instead of asking obama to join her in toning down the rhetoric and asking her husband to do the same, I think she loves this—-and is in denial or doesn’t care if it tears the party apart. in that way, I think she is like Bush. not in policies or priorities—-but in style.

I do agree with you, however, that whoever gets the nomination, in this country, has to be ready to fight back and “take it”. Personally, I always hoped that if McCain were the nominee, that the discourse and conversation would be elevated and stay there, because I believe he also hates, having been hurt so badly as well as his family, by dirty tactics in 2000—-but realize my hope of that happening is probably a pipe dream.

Posted by: judye at January 24, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #243757

What this reminds me of is the National Geographic special that highlights the struggle for dominance between two baboons for who gets to claim the mantle of “alpha male” of the Democrat party. We all know who wins…the one who wants it most.

Posted by: Snardius at January 24, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #243807

judye, McCain is losing his integrity. This week, perhaps in the same speech, he made the following comments. “I am the candidate who can work with Democrats”. “I am Democrats worst nightmare”.

Maybe its just another Republican with Alzheimers, but, it sure looks like loss of integrity to me. Was a time I would have voted for him. Then he spoke up about a lot more he believes in. Like tax cuts first, and spending cuts second.

Or, his totalitarian authoritarian rant, give him the power of the Congress with the line-item veto and his one person American government will get our fiscal house in order no matter how many children and seniors have to starve, die for lack of medical care, or be forced to impoverish their families with their upkeep. Sounds eerily like an Adolph Hitler speech.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 25, 2008 5:19 AM
Comment #243809

Since Obama, has brought Bill into the mainstream attacks on Hillary. Why doesen’t Hillary ask Barrak Hussain Obama, well, what has your spouse done or not done for this country, being my spouse is now your main topic? Just what this country needs, a person with muslin / islam background as President.

Posted by: Stephan at January 25, 2008 6:33 AM
Comment #243828

The Clintons are very good at starting a fight then trying to play victim. They’re also very good at twisting things. I at first was torn between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. But her and Pres. Clinton’s behavior have turned me off.

The problem is they see Obama as a threat. They assumed this campaign was going to be a cakewalk, and they thought they would have the nomination all sewed up.

Finally, Sen. Clinton needs to articulate better the type of experience she has that makes her better qualified instead of just saying she has the experience. Along with that, if she had so much experience, then why hasn’t she done more with it?

Posted by: M at January 25, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #243832

The only experience Hillary! has, and is quite good at, is trashing the bimbos who have had been unlucky enough to meet up with her husband. The woman is a professional at the politics of personal destruction. That is what this entire dustup in the media is about. The Clintons were terrified that Obama was running a positive, hope-filled campaign and they were losing. So the plan is to drag him down into the gutter with them and when he responds, trash him for running a negative campaign.

The Clintons will run a win-at-all-costs campaign because winning the White House is all about them.

Posted by: Snardius at January 25, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #243870

I have said many times that I voted for Obama in the primary and senatorial election in 2006, but I voted for Hillary on the first day of early voting in the Illinois primary. Obama is beginning to irritate with his endless theoretical dissertations on fixing the world, but I will be voting for him if he is the candidate of the Democratic party.

Hillary certainly brings out the hate from those who are determined never to forget the misinformation Scaife paid the media to disseminate. These are now being used again to make the public fearful of the bad old days of Corksuckergate. Remember, Scaife hates Hillary as much as Bill.

The follwing are all old writings, but still apply:

Richard Mellon Scaife and the vast right-wing conspiracy attempted to sabotage his presidency from the time of the election campaign and still haven’t given up. When people are sick of hearing about the Bill-hating, they do some Hilary-hating for a while.

The RMScaife VRWConspiracy people will never give up on Clinton. They even blame him for what was going on at the Mena Airport, when he was only governor and Reagan & Bush were presidents.

2 quotes from My Life about Starr and Scaife:

page 711:

The Arkansas Project was funded by the ultra-conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife from Pittsburgh, who had also pumped money into the American Spectator to fund its negative stories on Hillary and me. For example, the project had paid one former state trooper $10,000 for the ridiculous yarn accusing me of drug smuggling. Scaife’s people also worked closely with allies of Newt Gingrich. When David Brock was working on the Spectator featuring the two Arkansas state troopers who claimed they procured women for me, Brock had received not only his salary from the magazine but secret payments from Chicago businessman Peter Smith, the finance chairman of Newt’s political action committee.

page 746:

Kenneth Starr announced he would leave his post on August 1 to become dean of the Pepperdine University Law School in southern California. He had obviously decided that Whitewater was a dry hole and this was a graceful way out, but he received heavy criticism for his decision. The press said it looked bad because his Pepperdine position had been funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, whose funding of the Arkansas Project was not yet public knowledge, but who was widely recognized as an extreme right-winger with an animus towards me. I thought their objection was flimsy; Starr was already earning lots of money representing political opponents of my administration while serving as independent counsel, and he would in fact reduce his conflicts of interest by going to Pepperdine.

The drug smuggling must be the Mena airport story.

Posted by: ohrelay at January 25, 2008 7:40 PM
Comment #243884

IMO, The subtext for Bill Clinton’s attack on Obama is simple and profound: he’s is an uppity black guy attacking my white wife. Where better of an implicit attack of this nature to work than South Carolina?

Posted by: chuckh at January 25, 2008 8:33 PM
Comment #243917

He is like the smart nerdy kid just eagerly egging on the fat kid to give the new kid a wicked bloody nose. (I’m not calling Hillary fat…) The whole thing is just deplorable. Was he seriously our President? It makes me think we ought to consider changing the age requirement to run for President from 35 to “no Clintons allowed.”

Posted by: Ashley at January 26, 2008 1:36 AM
Comment #243948

That’s it, OHREALLY

Hillary and Bill,

So misunderstood,

So Innocent,

It’s all just a great conspiracy!

Hillary’s character standing next to Obama’s character is like the Joker standing next to Batman, like Charles Manson standing next to the Pope, like Billy the Kid standing next to Mother Theresa!

Obama, Obama, Obama!

Posted by: Scott at January 26, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #243949

I hope Bill and Hillary don’t send Obama to go live with Vince Foster!

Posted by: Scott at January 26, 2008 10:27 PM
Comment #243967

This is sooooo Hillaryous

Posted by: scott at January 27, 2008 2:53 AM
Comment #244162

I’m undecided about who & which party I’m voting for, but found this great article called “Black Voters and a Twist of Bias” on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.
WOW- all I have to say!
Here is an excerpt: “Last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic Primary produced the widely expected result of a Barack Obama victory. From the beginning of the week, it was the ethnic composition of the State in question which was amply discussed by both the Media and it’s multiple pundits. It was here and through other sources that we discovered that 55% percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina were African American. An interesting number when you consider the “coincidence” that Obama actually won the election by exactly the same margin: 55%. Of course, many in Clinton’s campaign have used this demographic reality to spin their defeat, vociferating that they had always expected to loose from the start. It should be noted that it has been this exact attitude which they have ridiculed Obama’s camp for, insinuating that they had proved to be “sore losers” by not admitting their own failures in stating their case to the American People. As we all know, in modern politics, no campaign is free of idiotic childishness, sadly resurfacing the reality that our current political existence is dominated by whining imbeciles of the lowest ilk. Nevertheless, the Clinton Campaign’s affirmation (victory based on a unified ethnic constituency) is valid, especially when we consider the data.
The Primary’s exit polling, presented by all major networks, were utilized by analysts to determine how was Obama’s, Edwards’, and Clinton’s support spread throughout different social markers. Their results indicated that 80% of the Black vote, and only 20% of the White vote, went towards Barack Obama. Regarding most White voters in the State, you could easily identify their split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The significance of this racial division is crucial in understanding the fate of Barack Obama’s campaign, and the Democratic Party, if they chose to face the General Election with him at the helm.…” Find the rest of the article at

Posted by: Elsylee at January 29, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #244466

Voters should realize that we are in an economic and foreign policy crisis. We do not have the luxury of making the Democratic primary into this season’s “American Idol” — we need a candidate who can ANSWER questions, not just speak in broad terms of “change” or “unity”. We need a candidate with a CONCRETE PLATFORM, a Chief Executive who has the EXPERIENCE to ACT QUICKLY and be DECISIVE and not just TALK about change but make CHANGE HAPPEN. This is HILLARY CLINTON. If Obama wants to ask someone what bills he should sign, maybe he should concede to HILLARY now since she has the answers. Its great that he got the youth “fired up and ready to go”, but he doesn’t yet know where to lead us — his policy is a moving target that we don’t have time for. Obama would make a great VP for a decisive, experienced leader, and that Leader is HILLARY CLINTON. Enough with empty rhetoric - it got us in this mess to begin with!

Posted by: KC at February 2, 2008 5:15 AM
Post a comment