Sunday, December 16, 2007

Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose about Obama - ' Who does he think he is?'

Bill Clinton took to the airwaves on The Charlie Rose Show. Basically, it was an attack fest on Barack Obama, with more than a little subtext of ' Who does he think he is, running for President?'

UPDATE: Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- Obama Responds

NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.

Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.
.............................................

He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.

Asked if Obama was ready to be president, Clinton failed to endorse that view, saying, "Well the voters have to make up their mind." He added that "even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have."

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is not as important as substance."

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."


.........................................

Rest of article is HERE.


Ok, here I go. I was trying to be nice, but no more.

I want someone to tell me, exactly what EXPERIENCE does Hillary Clinton have?

Are you going to try and make it that her being MARRIED to Bill Clinton counts as experience?

Are you?

Being MARRIED to someone is experience?

If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committe. Laura Bush will have the said EXPERIENCE that Hillary Clinton had when she ran for the U.S. Senate.

Exactly what the hell did she do as First Lady?

Oops, that right, we don't exactly know what is part of Hillary's 'EXPERIENCE', because they won't release her papers showing what she did as First Lady.

We DO know that the ONE thing she was assigned to do- Health Care-

WAS A DISASTER.

Not only in terms of results, but her APPROACH.

Secret Meetings.
Not willing to tell how it was organized.

Does this approach remind you of anyone? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney.

This is her natural instinct. This is her style. This is her EXPERIENCE.

Hate it with Cheney. Hillary is no better.

So, let's go to ELECTIVE experience.

She has ONE full term of elected office. ONE term in the Senate. That's it.

She got it because?

Because she was married to Bill Clinton.

She's gotten everything in her professional life because of WHO SHE WAS MARRIED TO.

Period.

She walked into NYC, and ran on her husband's coattails.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, wasn't even completely well known on the South Side of Chicago, let alone the state, when he ran. But, he did the hard work. The grunt work, going from town to town, winning over the voters, until he earned the Democratic Nomination.

Same thing for President.

She expected a coronation.

Barack Obama wants to be elected.

Huge difference.

He's done the work for it; going state to state, raising the money - FROM THE PEOPLE - not PACS or Lobbyists - FROM THE PEOPLE. He put together the organization, state by state, from the ground up. Doing the hard work. Doing the grunt work. Presenting himself to the American people, and trusting them to respond.And, they have.

Is part of the ' Experience' mantra of Bill Clinton, is that HE'S part of the experience?

So, you're telling me that the reason we should elect the first FEMALE President is because she'll bring ALONG A MAN TO HELP HER?

Hillary Clinton's EXPERIENCE can be whittled down to 2 pivotal moments:
1. Her handling of Health Care
2. Her vote on the Iraq War - a vote in which she has NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR.

Don't we already have a President that makes bad decisions, and refuses to live up to the mistakes that they bring? Why the hell would we elect another? And, she was on her way TO IRAN, until the NIE came out.

As for her ELECTABILITY.

Let's get this straight, once and for all.

IF you tell me that you're choosing a candidate based upon ELECTABILITY - then you should be going with JOHN EDWARDS - you see that, in the history of the United States, there has never been anyone elected other than a White Male, and he's a White Male.

I wouldn't like it. I would think you were wrong. BUT, I wouldn't think that you've lost your mind.

BUT, do not try and shill me, that, a woman who HALF THE COUNTRY has already told you, they will NEVER VOTE FOR, is the one that is most ELECTABLE.

This is a year out from the November 2008 elections, and HALF THE COUNTRY has told you they will NEVER vote for her - and, in what world, does that make her more ELECTABLE?

I am not naive. I fully know that Barack Obama could be a victim of a ' Bradley Effect'. But, for him to get where Hillary is RIGHT NOW TODAY....the 'Bradley Effect' would have to the size of a TSUNAMI.

I'll remind people again.

Barack Obama is NO OLDER than when Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992.

NO OLDER.

Barack Obama was a Senator from a state with 12 million people.

Bill Clinton was Governor of a state of only 3 million people.

Who had a harder road to tow to election?





Obama's response?


Obama throws back Bill Clinton's 1992 quote in his face.......
Q: Can you respond to President Clinton's comments last night when he asked when was the last time we elected a president with less than a year of service in the Senate before running for president. Can you respond?

OBAMA: Well look this is an argument they have been making during the duration of this campaign. I guess, here is a quote: (he reads) 'The same old experience is irreverent, you can have right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience and mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change' ... and that was Bill Clinton in 1992.



Other comments from Obama:

Obama cites 'over a decade' of experience
“And I’ve been involved in government for over a decade,” replied Obama.

The Illinois senator said he had "the experience that the country needs right now, of bringing people together, pushing against the special interests, of speaking to the American people about what needs to be done to move the country forward."

When asked about Sen. Clinton’s reference to possible “surprises” coming out about her rivals for the nomination, Obama said, referring to the senator and the ex-president, “The argument they’re making is that they’ve been around a long time. So whatever negative information is out there, people already know about. The assumption, then, is that lurking in other candidates’ pasts that haven’t been around for 20 years there might be something.”

But Obama said “I’ve probably been more reported on than any political figure in the country over the last year … I hardly think that I’ve been under-exposed during the course of this race.”

He added, “I understand there’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn…. I recall what the Clintons themselves called the ‘politics of personal destruction’ -- which they decried. My suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at right now. They are not interested in politics as a blood sport; they’re interested in governance and solving problems” such as job creation and product safety.


The sense of ENTITLEMENT REEKED from Clinton during the Charlie Rose interview. And, that is exactly why he, and his wife, need to be sent packing. She is NOT ENTITLED to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES because she suffered the public humiliation of his philandering.


Not.in.the.least.



This is as nice as I can be. There was another undercurrent in that interview, but maybe I'm too ' sensitive' as a Black person and picked up on it. If any other Black folk saw the interview, maybe they'll tell me if they picked up on the undercurrent too.......

3 comments:

Frank said...

Hillary Clinton Campaign is a sinking ship:
The most recent early states and national polls show that Hillary's campaign, which until her Philly debate fumble was a poll-dominant inevitability, is currently sinking lower every day. And there seem to be that no effort being make to stop the decline was working. Several of the efforts to save Hillary's campaign that has failed so far include CNN's rigged debate and after-debate spin; the gender card; Arm-twisting of the NY Gov to help her on immigration; Bill's daily show in Iowa; Accusation of the opponents; Novak's scandal rumor; Her current mud-slinging on Obama; Racking up thousand and one endorsements; Endorsement of NH's Gov's wife, Dr. Susan Lynch; Aggressively attacking Obama on healthcare; Kindergarten-gate (oh, it was a joke; so is the Clinton campaign also a joke?)

Below are Hillary's campaign new efforts that will not save it from crashing to the ground:
• DMR endorsement
• Maryland’s Governor endorsement
• Asking her attack dogs to throw dirt on Obama
• Hill-O-Copter
• Door Knocking in NH
• Bill Clinton’s new attack on Obama
• More endorsement from members of the democratic establishment to endorse her
• Getting Urban Magic Johnson to campaign in Iowa.
I know one solution that would stop Hillary’s poll slide and restore her chances of winning the nomination, but I’m not willing to give it to her unless……

The Angry Independent said...

Rikyrah...


They are sounding a little worried.

I have been raising these same questions.... what in the Hell does her "First Lady" status have to do with running the Country? Her supporters are counting her first lady of Arkansas and First lady in Washington DC as serious experience. First Ladies aren't in the Oval office during tough meetings, nor are they in the Cabinet room or the situation room dealing with serious decisions. But the American public is falling for this nonsense because American voters are (on the whole) politically/intellectually lazy...and picking Clinton is easy for them because her name is familiar (just like the name George Bush was familiar to them). This whole "experience" nonsense is a myth created by her supporters in corporate media who want to see her win.

She has never run a large organization, has never run a government, and has never run a corner store. Has she even run a lemonade stand? She has only held elected office for a few years...an office that she attained because of her last name. She wasn't even one of the more powerful First Ladies in the White House. And as you and I have both mentioned... the one big initiative that she pushed as "her baby" ended up being a complete failure...but her campaign (with help from the corporate media) has been able to frame that failure into some sort of "learning experience"...she NOW knows how to get Universal Healthcare. Yet, she did nothing in Willy's second term to get the initiative back on track....and she did nothing after he left office. However, one thing for sure that she did do was take plenty of money from lobbyists from the health insurance and drug industries over that same period when we didn't hear a peep from her about healthcare.

NOW all of a sudden she is an advocate again. True advocates stick with it all the way, through good times and bad, when the issue is popular and when it isn't...and they don't sell out to the opposition's special interest groups for the money. SHE IS A FRAUD. I cannot stand this woman!!!

And as for the age issue... the Obama camp showed how ridiculous Clinton's statement was. His own quote pretty much sunk that argument.

I actually hope Edwards and Obama do well in Iowa...but I would rather see Edwards win the whole thing. Not because Obama is not able... but because Edwards would have a better shot in the General Election.

The Republican machine would eat Obama up. Their plans for Obama would probably make John Kerry look like just an appetizer.

But of course this is wishful thinking on my part. In reality, I fully expect the coronation to continue.

The issues that were brought up in this interview are the reasons why I call it a coronation. The Clintons are part of the Establishment wing of the Democratic Party... the section of the Party that is o.k. with the idea that their politicians are owned and operated by big corporate interests. They have this sense of entitlement. And in the context of a contest with Obama that sense of entitlement is both racial and political.

The Clinton's see Obama as being a challenge to both the White Power structure, AND to the Traditional political establishment...the corrupt legacy Parties. He had the nerve to mention that he reached out to Republicans for some sort of validation??????????? That says it all. These are the Democrats who I call...the Republicrats.
Just look at their buddy Joe "Lie"bermann who just endorsed one of the most hawkish pro-war neocons in the Senate... John McCain.

The American political system is such a joke. They have actually managed to convince the American people that they live in a Democracy. As usual, the joke is on the American voter who plays along with this nonsense.
The U.S. is no more Democratic than Russia, or any other Country that wears the costume of Democracy.

I will sit back and watch the coronation ceremony as it unfolds.

The people of Iowa have an opportunity to knock the coronation off track... but I won't be surprised if they fail and vote how the media has been telling them to for the past several months.

I want to believe that American voters are too smart to allow themselves to be told how to vote by the mass media...but I know that in reality American voters are easily fooled.

The Iowa Caucus is something special though...and it's the last chance for the coronation to be challenged. If she isn't stopped in Iowa..then the rest of the process will be purely ceremonial. She will walk right into the Convention.

Therefore, everything may be riding on Iowa. But watch how the news media tries to make sure she gets all of the coverage over the next couple of weeks...they will try to make sure she wins.

I will be carrying out my silent protest again this year... (not participating in the farce).

The entire U.S. election process/political system is garbage. The U.S. is a phony Democracy. It always will be a phony Democracy, as long as there is this two party establishment or legacy system, where corruption is built in. Voters have very little power in such a system...this is why you are seeing more frustrated voters. Unfortunately people in this Country are stuck in a 2 Party frame of mind...they can't imagine anything else but the current system. Therefore, nothing will change. Even if Edwards or Obama are nominated....and elected... things still won't change. It's the system that is the problem, not necessarily individual politicians. Without changes to the system that would allow additional political parties to participate on the national level, the emergence of new permanent political parties, and that would eliminate the culture of corruption, things will remain relatively the same over the long term.

And this government has the nerve to tell other Countries how to govern? PLEASE!

I have to take some excedrin now... and lay down for some rest.

Rikyrah... this issue (the corrupt American political system), along with U.S. Foreign Policy, and the degenerate Black Culture and Hip Hop...are 3 big issues that just get me riled up. These are the three issues that really raise my blood pressure and literally make me ill. They sometimes send me over the cliff.

jhill2008 said...

I respect that Hillary "introduced" health care in 1993, but many people don't remember that at that time there was a Democratic president as well as a Democratic Congress. Perhaps if she had used a different approach things would have been different. Hillary says that she stands up to the interest groups, my question is that since health care failed in 1993, why was it not attempted in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000? That doesn't seem like a history of standing up to the interest groups to me. She says she "fights" for the people, where was the fight? Other than health care, I can't remember anything else that Hillary was associated with other than Bill. I know that some people are supporting Hillary because of Bill, but we have to look at each candidate independently, because it is truly not a two for one. Bill has a history of health problems, suppose he became ill or worse? Bill Clinton is not running for President. In the past I felt that Hillary was attacked unfairly, but now I say when people show you who they are, believe them. If she is so "experienced" why does she go to sophomoric attacks on Obama's character? Is this the experience she is so proud of? Also, I am very disappointed in Bill Clinton. I voted for him twice and believe that he was a good president, but why did he say that he was against the Iraq war from the start? It's because Obama had the vision and judgment to speak out against the war and he and his wife did not. Obama's judgment trumped the experience of a former President and a sitting US Senator. People try to dismiss that, but it is extremely important, just look at all of the lives lost and the billions spent on a war that should have never been authorized or waged. Bill's comments about Obama do smell of "Who does he think he is?" I think that Obama is just what the United States needs at this time.