The Blue State

Clinton said same thing as Obama in '91

Barack Obama has drawn fire over the last few days for attributing poverty as the source behind many social insecurities in this country.  Hillary Clinton flipped out at Obama for having the guts to make such a bold statement.

Though, it turns out that in 1991 Bill Clinton said virtually the same thing:

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that youhave all these economically insecure white people who are scared todeath," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

And once again:

"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South.I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the nextelection is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decadeafter decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when thecountry's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do?They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the livingdaylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at eachother across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think,Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at GeorgeBush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened toeverybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ...country?'"

Funny how the tables can turn in an instant.

Bill spins Hillary's Bosnia misstatement

If you are an Obama supporter, you appreciate the fact that Bill Clinton is keeping this story in the forefront.  The longer the networks talk about it, the more that Hillary's honesty will be an issue.  This was Bill Clinton yesterday:

"You know, I got tickled the other day. A lot of the way this wholecampaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot offulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she wasexhausted, misstated — and immediately apologized for it — whathappened to her in Bosnia  in 1995 [sic]. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.

"Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and General Wesley Clark –who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers, who hadto ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to gothe regular, safe way –  both defended her because they pointed outthat when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to thebulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to puttheir flak jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. Andeverywhere they went, they were covered by Apache helicopters. So theyjust abbreviated the arrival ceremony.

"Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even thenshe was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first firstlady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'drobbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them,when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 atnight, too.”

Of course she'd go to the bullet proof part of the plane.  She was the First Lady.  I wouldn't be surprised if they made her do that during other trips as well.  Really though -- if there is ever a bullet proof part of a plane, and if the First Lady or any other elected officials are flying, why would they not be seated there?

(Video) Bill Clinton once said "the same old experience is not relevant"

During a 1992 debate with George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot, then-Governor Bill Clinton responded to Bush's claim that experience means everything:

Well-said, Bill!

If experience and insider status are everything, then Hillary Clintonis playing the role of George H.W. Bush, and Barack Obama is playingthe role of Bill Clinton.

(Video) Bill Clinton points out hypocrisy of Petraeus ad frenzy

This video is getting posted all over the place, and I want to make sure all of you have a chance to watch it.  In an interview this week with Anderson Cooper, former President Clinton went on a full-blown offensive, setting an example for progressives by standing up to the GOP's latest diversionary tactic.  The GOP gets slammed on this one!

CLINTON: [I] think that there was somethingcompletely disingenuous about the feigned outrage of the Republicansand the White House and in the Congress about this. This was classicbait-and-switch.

COOPER: Focus on that as opposed to focusing on what's really happening?

CLINTON: Yeah, that's right. I don't have to deal with Iraq. I don'thave to tell anybody what I'm gonna do. Everything we do in Iraq isobviously right, because they said this about Petraeus. As if it wasthe only issue in the wide world. Come on, all the Republicans that areupset about Petraeus? This is one newspaper ad. These are the peoplethat ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half hisbody in Vietnam, in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and SaddamHussein. That's what the Republicans did. And the person that rode tothe Senate on that ad was there, voting to condemn the Democrats overthe Petraeus ad. I mean, these are the people that funded the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth. And the president appointed one of theprincipal funders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador, butthey're really upset about Petraeus. But it was OK to question JohnKerry's patriotism on blatantly dishonest claims, by people who didn'tknow what they were talking about. So it was just bait-and-switch. Itwas just, 'Oh, thank goodness. I can take this little word here, andignore what we've done in Iraq, and what we're gonna do, and theoutrageous way we gained political power by smearing John Kerry.'

Bill Clinton is better than any Democrat at 'rallying the forces', so to speak.  He did it last year during the Chris Wallace interview, and now he is encouraging progressives to hit back against the Republican attack machine.

The GOP as a whole has taken absolutely zero responsibility for this man-made catastrophe in Iraq.  All they can possibly do between now and the end of time is to find a way to blame Democrats for losing the war.  They are literally that desperate.  Their ability to raise money has faded away.  They are losing younger voters in droves.  There is no other way out other than to dodge their own responsibility of enabling this war and blaming someone else.

MoveOn.org is not losing this war -- George W. Bush and the Republican Party are.

NYT: Tenet became different person when Clinton left

This morning, the New York Times editorial board asked where the al Qaeda-fighting version of George Tenet went when Bush was elected?:

George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, rang theQaeda alarm. He sent a memo to the entire intelligence community sayingthat he wanted no effort spared in the “war” with Osama bin Laden. Hetook on the president’s closest advisers to agitate for a strike on aQaeda base in Afghanistan.      

The disturbing thing was thatthis all happened under President Bill Clinton. When George W. Bush wonthe White House, Mr. Tenet seems to have shifted his priorities. TheC.I.A. chief suddenly seemed consumed with hanging on to his job(through such innovative antiterrorism measures as naming the C.I.A.’sLangley, Va., headquarters for Mr. Bush’s father).

The Bush teamwas so busy in 2001 trying to upend America’s global relationshipsaccording to a neo-conservative agenda that the then national securityadviser, Condoleezza Rice, did not see any urgency in reports that AlQaeda was determined to strike in the United States. Mr. Tenet laterhelped hype the “slam dunk” intelligence that Mr. Bush used to justifydiverting the military from the war of necessity against Al Qaeda inAfghanistan to the war of choice in Iraq.

The priorities of the two administrations were so fundamentally opposite.  Contrary to what ABC and Fox News' Chris Wallace want to believe, Bill Clinton was criticized by Republicans during his presidency for being "too obsessed" with Osama bin Laden.  He wanted to fight al Qaeda.  But immediately after Bush was elected, the attention turned to Saddam Hussein.

I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.

Hillary contradicted herself on nukes in order to smear Obama

Last week, immediately after Barack Obama ruled out using nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Hillary's campaign slammed the freshman Illinois Senator for being irresponsible:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the useor nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the ColdWar have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believethat any president should make any blanket statements with respect tothe use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

But back in April of 2006, Hillary said she would take nukes off the table:

`I have said publicly nooption should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclearweapons off the table,'' Clinton said.  ``This administration hasbeen very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way wehaven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terriblemistake.''

Remember though, Hillary is thinking big -- in other words, preparing for the general election.  That is why today, more so than last year, she intends to flex her muscles on national defense.

The problem is when you engage in this kind of political calculation -- appealing to different voters at different times -- later on your opponents can come back and easily discover contradicting statements that you made.  Voters like bold and decisive leaders that have a spine, not politicians that tell one group of people that their favorite color is green, and then the next day inform an entirely different group of voters that it's red, just to make everybody happy in the short-run.

If Hillary stuck to her core progressive principles, and put boldness ahead of political calculation, more voters would respect her.

Is Hillary using Bill to win Iowa -- where is the feminism in that?

Between Monday and next Saturday, Hillary Clinton will barnstormthrough the state of Iowa in an attempt to gain ground on caucusfrontrunner John Edwards.  She may succeed in doing that.  From Mondaythrough Wednesday, the former First Lady will use her husband BillClinton as a mechanism to attract more media attention as she tours. TheDes Moines Register reports that Hillary is going all-out this week:

The Clintons are planning a three-day, six-city swingbeginning Monday evening at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.

Theevent kicks off a series of campaign rallies and represent the firsttime the former president will campaign anywhere for the former firstlady, outside of attending fund-raisers for her.

The campaign iscasting a wide net to promote the Monday event, putting out a recordedtelephone message in central Iowa, whose recipients included peopleregistered as Democrats and independents.

The Clintons also arescheduled to campaign together at the University of Iowa in Iowa Cityand in downtown Davenport on Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday, they planto participate in the Clear Lake July 4th parade before headlining anafternoon event at the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo and anevening event in Cedar Rapids.

What's stunning is that Mrs. Clinton attracts the support of manyfeminists, yet she uses her husband in order to obtain a competitiveadvantage over Obama, Edwards and Richardson.  As a male that evenconsiders myself a feminist, I think Hillary would be an inspiration ifshe won it on her own, and didn't use a her husbandin a campaign ad every time she needs to meet certain fundraisinggoals.  Just a thought.

(Video) Bill pulls out all stops for Hillary

This is a sign of things to come in the months leading up to Iowa.  Today, the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign unveiled an internet ad on Youtube that featured Bill Clinton urging support for his wife's candidacy:

This is exactly why Hillary Clinton is the favorite in the Democratic field.  Her husband is the best in politics at making emotional appeals to undecided voters.  This will be difficult for the Edwards and Obama campaigns to top.

Clinton team obsesses about Al Gore

In recent days, the Clintons and their high-ranking supporters have begun preempting any future announcement by Al Gore that he will enter the presidential race.  If you look at what has been said this week, Bill Clinton and especially James Carville are daring him to throw his name into the hat.  All of this was said on the same day.  A coincidence?  With the Clintons, not likely.

Thursday night on Larry King Live, Bill Clinton hinted that Gore might run:

"..you have got the prospect that vice president Gore might run."

That was apple sauce compared to what came out of Carville's mouth earlier that day at Tulane University:

"Gore will run again because, quoting George Will, running for president is like sex: 'You don't do it once and forget about it.'"

Barely any talk about the former Vice President up until this point, and then bam!  You get Bill Clinton and James Carville, two of the most successful political strategists during the 1990s, bringing up Al Gore in the span of just a few hours.  Coincidence?  Or is there a possibility that the Clinton team is now in the process of game-planning for a Gore arrival into the presidential race?

To me, they appear to be daring Gore to get in.  Politically speaking, if that did happen, John Edwards' presidential hopes would be toast.  A lot of Edwards' support comes from online activists.  Without the backing of some the top blogs, such as Kos, the former North Carolina Senator would have little infrastructure left standing. 

Deep down, I know that some bloggers -- and I will include myself -- have a fantasy scenario of Gore declaring his candidacy in September, beating Clinton in the primaries, and then going on to win the general election.  Not that I even want that to happen, or think it would be best for the party in the long run.  In fact, I have yet to be convinced that Gore is electable.  But there is that inner yearning for 2008 to end up how 2000 should have been.

I give it a 20% chance that Gore will enter the race.  A lot of it depends on his Nobel Peace Prize, and whether the former Vice President can raise enough money in a matter of weeks.  Either way, the buzz has the Clinton family worried, clearly bothered and strangely obsessed.

(Video) Bill is jealous of Barack

Patrick Healy, who covers politics for the New York Times, noted on the Chris Matthews Show that the Clinton Campaign is "furious" about Barack Obama's popularity on the internet, and the perception that the Illinois Senator has been consistent on the Iraq war from the very beginning:

HEALY: They're furious.  And they're furious that they see that the media in collusion, to some extent with the Obama Campaign, is portraying him as dovish and consistent on the war from the very beginning.

As Matthews referred to, this week during a conference call with reporters, Bill Clinton questioned whether Barack Obama had been consistent on Iraq.  It is becoming clear the Bill's role in this campaign will be to pick out bits and pieces of Obama quotes from 2002, and find similar quotes from Hillary in order to make his wife look less hawkish.

No offense, Bill.  We love you.  But please, don't cry wolf.  If you want to know how Obama felt about the Iraq war, look no further than his October 2002 speech on that subject:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a USoccupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, withundetermined consequences.I know that an invasion of Iraq without aclear rationale and without strong international support willonly fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, ratherthan best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen therecruitment arm of Al Queda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Contrast that with Hillary's rubber stamp speech on the Senate floor earlier that same month:

I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongestpossible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war.Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake aboutour national unity and for our support for the President's efforts towage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

I am sorry Bill, but Obama and Hillary were miles apart on their views about Iraq.  Each time you unfairly characterize Obama's position, you stoop to the same level of the Administration currently in power.  You are much better than that.