Clinton Kremlinology

It is hard to know for sure whether advisers to Hillary Clinton -- heck, Sen. Clinton herself -- is happy that the attention of the press corps is focused on her husband.

The New York Times's Healy, who has excellent sources in Hillaryland, writes that the brain trust has concluded that "aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary."

To the extent that Bill's focus keeps the press's focus on Obama's qualifications and forces Obama to spend time defending his record, the former president's participation is an unalloyed good. And certainly, the more Democrats he sees in person, the better. Core Democrats love him.

But what's not helpful -- and what is worrying some Clinton advisers -- is Clinton's habit, his itch, to revert to a habit of the partisan wars of his presidency -- he blames the media for everything and casts himself as the victim. (Classic Clinton self-pity is how Maureen Dowd put it.)

To Obama advisers, the video selection above is, in and of itself, an argument for Obama's candidacy. More of that?

But can anyone tell Bill Clinton that, even if he is right on the merits -- he has to simmer down? Is Sen. Clinton herself aware of the uniformly negative coverage that her husband's outbursts have generated? Remember: Bill Clinton helped to drive his wife off message in Iowa, too.

Comments

"even if he is right on the merits"

Who in their right mind thinks Clinton is "right on the merits"? He's been lying about Obama's record from day 1 and that's the problem. If he was telling the truth, I don't think many people would have a problem with it.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 10:17 AM

Marc, no one has ever lost an election by attacking the press.

You may be sensitive about his attacking you guys but Bill Clinton is making a very valid point.

Why don't you cover the stuff that Americans really care about during elections? I know, I know, because it doesn't draw as wide an audience as does a fight.

But still whenever the public sees Clinton they like it when he scores a hit on the press. You just don't get it.

Posted by ken | January 25, 2008 10:28 AM

Bill ROCKS!

The MSM CW echo-chamber is clueless with regards to how many Democrats agree with Bill. And, as the latest WSJ/NBC poll proves, there are a lot more of us than you!

The only people who think Bill is a liability are Obama supporters and their Kool-Aid drinking media and pundits.

In fact, any more liabilities like we saw in New Hampshire and Nevada, Hillary will be riding those liabilities right to the Democratic nomination!

Posted by JoeCHI | January 25, 2008 10:33 AM

Is Sen. Clinton herself aware of the uniformly negative coverage that her husband's outbursts have generated?

Yeah. I think that's your impression. But I'd be guessing that most garden variety Democrats who don't spend their days reading (or writing) blogs actually don't find the attacks off-putting, no matter what they might say about "negative campaigning.

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 25, 2008 10:57 AM

Unable to inspire, Clinton chooses to destroy.

Posted by amy | January 25, 2008 11:29 AM

I'm an edwards partisan with Obama my second choice, but looking at this objectively, I can;t see how that statement was anywhere close to what it is being portrayed to be.

You'd think the guy broker furnituure and spewed spittle. No. he was calm, smiling, deliberate and conversational.

You guys in the media are just weird.

Posted by drfranklives | January 25, 2008 11:43 AM

I think the media has a very hard time remembering the lessons it learnt in New Hamshire, and will be reminded again and again during this election season.

The voting public agrees with Bill Clinton. The voting public does not see a red faced angry Bill Clinton, but a calm Bill Clinton who is making it very clear that he does not have to answer to the race based media accusations. The media has gotten so busy parroting the attacks and counter attacks, that they have forgotten what the voting public cares about.

Remember, Clinton is winning because she is running a campaign for the people. Obama is loosing because he is running a campaign for the media. key lesson of the 2008 primary season. Same dynamic will play out with McCain and Romney. If Romney runs a campaign for the people he wins, If McCain runs a campaign for the media, he looses.

Posted by SK | January 25, 2008 11:52 AM

To Obama advisers, the video selection above is, in and of itself, an argument for Obama's candidacy. More of that?

I think this line of reasoning has a lot more effect with political junkies and inside-the-beltway types. Ordinary people just turn off the tube or navigate to another website if they tire of the latest shenanigans of this or that politician. It's just not that big a deal. Their lives don't revolve around politics. Heck, to the extent Bill provides great entertainment fodder for the likes of Letterman, Leno, and Stewart, his return to the White House would be a net plus. I mean, seriously, if a return to the political wars of the Clinton years were the price of a fatter paycheck and better job prospects, most voters would take that deal in a heartbeat. Not surprisingly, Obama finds much of his support among affluent and upper middle class liberals: people who don't need a return to 90s style prosperity.

In sum, I think for most Hillary supporters, it's not so much a matter of either liking or loathing her and her husband; it's rather a matter of simply not being able to afford another Republican presidency, and deeming Clinton the surer bet to take the country and its economy back.

Posted by Jasper | January 25, 2008 11:53 AM

The clintons and the sizable electorate that continue to believe in them have always had to filter out the hate and spittle and bias: to continue to do so now is not hard.
The clintons have always counted on the public's ability to see through the spittle and slime and bias and they have often (with the notable exceptioon of health care way back) been able to.

One could fairly say the Clintons bring out the worst in some people and the best in others and yet I recognise the haters will disagree with me which does what.
Kremlinology is a fairly dark comment but pretty funny too. Why would they call a halt to something that has Obama so completely off message?

Posted by Michael C. | January 25, 2008 11:56 AM

Obama will be a great president after Clinton's term. He will have built a record then and will receive a country in better shape. Vision, Americans, vision.

Posted by Lilia | January 25, 2008 11:58 AM

There are so many reasons the Clintons are to be dreaded and fought: full saturation moral corruption, congenital dishonesty, paranoia, the list goes on and on. But the one that keeps reasserting itself is how diminishing a Clinton restoration would be to the true values of the country. After eight years of the son of a former President, we are now considering eight years of an ACTUAL former President. After all, the one thing BC's recent behavior has made clear is that HE's running, and it will be every bit his Presidency as his wife's. I feel an instinctive queasiness when I think of it. Obama's rise is purely American. The return of the Clintons is pure banana republic. It's depressing to read posts by people like JoeCHI, who sounds like a peasant doffing his cap to his master.

The constitution was created to restrain the dynastic megalomania of individual men. The Clintons are drilling into the inner sanctum to defile the country's core values. How tragic. America is great because of the power of it's constitution.

It seems to me that the Billary is a giant parasite and the Democratic party is it's host. If the Democratic party can't expel it they probably can't win, and if they do win they won't be able to govern. If they can't expel it, then I for one will forever consider them a party of spineless, cowering, frightened serfs. Do they not remember that under the Billary they lost the House, they lost the Senate and they had fewer Governors.

The red lights are flashing and the siren is sounding, will the Democratic party save itself??

Posted by h1000 | January 25, 2008 12:03 PM

Today the Senator said she’ll take NYT editorial’s advice and change the tone. Bill is largely popular, especially with Latinos, so keeping him hidden away, is not a great way to use a powerful asset. Think of it this way: would you have asked Obama to do the same to Oprah? Granted, Oprah has refused to campaign again since being beaten up on her own message boards, but it makes no sense to handicap yourself with your own asset.

Posted by LawSchoolDem | January 25, 2008 12:20 PM

Marc's blog entry demonstrates just how out of touch the beltway punditocracy really is.

Most Democrats, seeing that Clinton video, say, "you go, Bill". They see a media that has been depraved in creating their race war narrative and a politician who is telling them, to their faces, exactly how the American people feel about the media.

Aside from that, Clinton is remarkably calm for a guy who has just been compared to Lee Atwater. Them's fightin' words to a Democrat.

To be perfectly honest, the American people would be better off if the media simply vanished from the campaign trail. Just go home. Spend your time sniffing scented geraniums at Sally Quinn's Georgetown cocktail parties. Seriously.

Posted by hwc | January 25, 2008 12:21 PM

Why do you fail to include the entire clip? He was responding, calmly and intelligently, to an outrageous smear by Obama supporter by a major SC supporter--Dick Harpootlian. The man was called Lee Atwater. Now it's the Obama campaign that doesn't want to inject race, right?

Check the entire video:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/23/bill.clinton.yellin.cnn

Posted by Davidson | January 25, 2008 12:28 PM

I meant to say: "...an outrageous smear by a major Obama SC supporter--Dick Harpootlian."

Posted by Davidson | January 25, 2008 12:30 PM

Why do you fail to include the entire clip?

I think we all know the answer to that. If the media provided the actual context, they would be reporting news rather than making it.

YouTube is the media's worst enemy. The American people are not stupid; they can see that the media distorts every candidate and every issue while they sit around their Georgetown echo chamber clucking like hens, falling in line with the day's designated spin.

Posted by hwc | January 25, 2008 12:46 PM

Last time I checked Obama was running against Senator Clinton. She just happens to have a very well known and popular spouse. Talk about Obama not being ready to go up against the Republican machine!! By the way fact check on Obama's wishy washy position on the war and his lunatic statements regarding Reagan! As a longtime Democrat it is highly offensive that he is being disrespectful of President Clinton and it is HE who is damaging the chances of a win in the fall election because of his greed!

Unlike the plan to show case him ths election he decided to go for it. He catapulted himself using a popular figure Oprah. Bully for him but it backfired because WOMEN could be heard stampeding to Senator Clinton whom unlike the Men think we actually DO respect when we aren't being told how to think! So whether it is a black man or a white man it is still a man. And unlike President Clinton, OBAMA did glorify REAGAN in his message it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he is trying to do while he is saying President Clinton did nothing.

But he isn't smart enough to realize that WE LONG TERM DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON REDUCED BIG GOVERNMENT, BALANCED THE BUDGET AND LEFT A 5 TO 6 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS. I'd equate OBAMA TO GEORGE W. BUSH. Can you say 8 more years of misery if he gets elected since he won't be challenged about his plans or ideas and he lies about his background?

Obama FINALLY decides not to fund Iraq War!
Yeah he lied about his position once again and this is really him saying it!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3hmqQ0vViA

Obama FEELS Ronald Reagan put the country on a different path one that President Clinton did not! Well he is right about that! Reagan
enriched his buddies through "It did not trickle down economics!", Reagan Raided the Social Security Trust Fund to reduce the deficit (Yeah our Savings) And the President that Obama criticized our Democratic President actually
left us a balanced budget and a 5 to 6 trillion dollar surplus that the Republicans once again squandered! So Obama is the liar! His words not the Clintons!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

Posted by UWBizKid | January 25, 2008 1:13 PM

Last time I checked Obama was running against Senator Clinton. She just happens to have a very well known and popular spouse. Talk about Obama not being ready to go up against the Republican machine!! By the way fact check on Obama's wishy washy position on the war and his lunatic statements regarding Reagan! As a longtime Democrat it is highly offensive that he is being disrespectful of President Clinton and it is HE who is damaging the chances of a win in the fall election because of his greed!

Unlike the plan to show case him ths election he decided to go for it. He catapulted himself using a popular figure Oprah. Bully for him but it backfired because WOMEN could be heard stampeding to Senator Clinton whom unlike the Men think we actually DO respect when we aren't being told how to think! So whether it is a black man or a white man it is still a man. And unlike President Clinton, OBAMA did glorify REAGAN in his message it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he is trying to do while he is saying President Clinton did nothing.

But he isn't smart enough to realize that WE LONG TERM DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON REDUCED BIG GOVERNMENT, BALANCED THE BUDGET AND LEFT A 5 TO 6 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS. I'd equate OBAMA TO GEORGE W. BUSH. Can you say 8 more years of misery if he gets elected since he won't be challenged about his plans or ideas and he lies about his background?

Obama FINALLY decides not to fund Iraq War!
Yeah he lied about his position once again and this is really him saying it!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3hmqQ0vViA

Obama FEELS Ronald Reagan put the country on a different path one that President Clinton did not! Well he is right about that! Reagan
enriched his buddies through "It did not trickle down economics!", Reagan Raided the Social Security Trust Fund to reduce the deficit (Yeah our Savings) And the President that Obama criticized our Democratic President actually
left us a balanced budget and a 5 to 6 trillion dollar surplus that the Republicans once again squandered! So Obama is the liar! His words not the Clintons!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

Posted by UWBizKid | January 25, 2008 1:14 PM

I love how anything Clinton says is an "outburst." The media cracks me up. Unless Clinton goes out with an Obama pin on and says, "Please don't vote for my b***ch of a wife, vote Obama" you guys will portray him as "out of control." Ridiculous.

Posted by Teresa | January 25, 2008 1:18 PM

Clinton just sounds ugly in that video...You don't have to be red-faced and frothing at the mouth to look ugly...Similar to Hillary's cackle during the debate in which Obama was asked about having an advisor from the clinton administration....

This video just shows how off-base some of the clearly Clinton-allied commentators are...People watch that stuff and want to immdeately turn-away...Its off-putting, and lets not forget: personality counts. Quite frankly, that has always been Hillary's weakness...She is fundementally an unlikable person and comes across as calculating and inauthentic...Bill is fundementally a likebale guy, but not when he goes into ugly-defensive mode.... Clearly a net-minus in the campagn, but the election won't hinge simply on ugly exchanges between candidates....

Posted by Alex | January 25, 2008 1:32 PM

No one is electing Bill Clinto for a 3rd term here... I think most of the country wants to wash away with the last 20-years of monarchy and move to fresh blood, fresh energy, and a fresh perspective.... Tired old politicans that elect themselves via huge funding from corporate lobbyists, party-muscle, and a self-crowning "immedeate front-runner" attitude (like GW Bush did 8 years ago) are not what the country wants....

Time for a new direction here... Do you really want another 8 years of the same crap? Do you really want 28 years of Bushes and Clintons? My lord...

Posted by John | January 25, 2008 1:36 PM

All of us remember who initiated NAFTA and sent over 6,000,000 jobs packing... We also remember who failed to take leadership on environmental issues.... Both failed Clinto policies were pursued vigorously further by the Bushes..... No one wants more free-trade send-our-jobs-to-Thailand agreements...But that is what the Clintons want because its profitable to all their corporate backers.... Lets not forget that it was Bill Clinto who sent Robert Rubin crusading all over the world to pry-open capital and goods markets in the hopes of achieving the global free-trade nightmare that we have today....It was those actions that led to what is going on now...Lets not make it worse....

Posted by J.G. | January 25, 2008 1:39 PM

The manner in which Bill Clinton is attacking Obama on behalf of Hillary Clinton is a preview of what a second Clinton presidency would look like.

Posted by Sheldon | January 25, 2008 1:42 PM

Now, the Atlantic is calling for a complete, detailed accounting of every time Bill and Hillary had sex from 1992 to 2000.

Seriously, media pundits. Get some help.

Posted by hwc | January 25, 2008 1:47 PM

Its funny how the mediat pundits already elected Hillary...I think the real folks in the country will see things differently....We don't take our cues from CNN or Newsweek...

Posted by John | January 25, 2008 1:51 PM

This is really a generational issue:

Baby boomers want more of the same and will vote for Billary

Young folks are looking for new leadership, new energy and a new approach and will vote for Obama...

The election wil come-down to demographic turnout....

Posted by Jason | January 25, 2008 1:53 PM

Bill Clinton "blames the media" for good reason -- just look at the coverage of the campaign.

And to cite Maureen Dowd as some kind of arbiter of the Clintons' emotional stability is laughable.
You might as well get the "objective" opinion of your fellow Atlantic blogger, Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by Dale | January 25, 2008 2:04 PM

JoeCHI,

One would have to be retarded not to see that an Obama candidacy radically widens the base for the Democrats - he draws an unprecedented amount of independents - and greatly increases the chances of a Democratic victory in November.
The opportunistic, nepotist wife of our second-rate ex-president alienates both independents and a substantial amount of the Democratic base - folks like me and many of my friends and associates. I have voted Democratic since 1980 - holding my nose while filling in the oval for stinkers like Dukakis, Mondale and Kerry. However, the blatant LYING and distortion, as bad as that of any Republican, displayed by The Billary has been far too obscene. I will support Obama, and failing that, support Bloomberg, and failing that, stay home and get really drunk.

Posted by Walden Greenwood | January 25, 2008 2:20 PM

After watching the video clip, I too, am amazed by how big a mountain the media makes of this. This was not an outburst, Bill was not red-faced, I thought he made a very valid point about the media only focusing on the fracas and the bickering, not on the issues. Just look at Google News today, the first two pages, 60 entries and not one is focusing on the issues; all of them are about the back-and-fro between the campaigns and not about the issues. Where is the in-depth coverage of the candidates' policies and positions? Can the media please provide coverage about what really matters to people? I totally agree with president Clinton on this issue...

Posted by Henri | January 25, 2008 2:47 PM

Bill Clinton "blames the media" for good reason -- just look at the coverage of the campaign.
And to cite Maureen Dowd as some kind of arbiter of the Clintons' emotional stability is laughable.
You might as well get the "objective" opinion of your fellow Atlantic blogger, Andrew Sullivan.

Agreed, Dale!

Posted by JoeCHI | January 25, 2008 3:06 PM

Guys, as a Republican, I love watching you prepare to crown the hag. What a perfect present for the GOP! 4 more years!

Posted by ejellison | January 25, 2008 4:00 PM

Ever open the wrong closet and have things fall on top of your head? The Clintons really did it this time....

For “We the People” it’s a real sad time that our election process has proven to be a sham. I personally know the Clintons (and Bush’s and others) are involved in a huge Federal Criminal System that is being artificially protected for those involved. How I know may interest you…..

I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined a huge criminal system when I first married. Their job within this group is to launder “Drug and Gun Running” money straight into property using Mortgage fraud with Big Banks. The Clintons, Bush Family and others are directly involved in this system. It makes what was happening in Mena while Bill Clinton was Governor a child’s toy. Plus, Clyde O’Connor who was an owner/pilot of one of the Drug jet planes carrying TON’s of Cocaine that was busted last year happens to be my ex-sister-in-law’s brother. Everyone on the Internet is looking for the “money man” behind Clyde and I know for fact he is my ex-sister-in-law’s husband, my ex-brother-in-law. Please note that the “Gun Running” part has already been in the news with Chiquita and Drummond however what many don’t know is that both of these companies plus others also are/were shipping in huge amounts of drugs. In the 90’s, Chicago alone was getting a weekly $100 Million dollar shipment of drugs that was split up with Florida and New York as well. That amounts to more than $5 Billion per year and there were other huge weekly shipments going elsewhere! Guess who has been feeding our kids cocaine for all these years! You’ll be shocked to know what the money is being used for and who all is involved!

As far as Rezko, this is personal for me as I fear that my youngest son is linked in with Rezko’s illegal activities. The Federal Criminal system that the Clintons are part of, are blocking everyone from surfacing the real truth with the crimes involved.

A friend of mine with another past experience and I would be willing to help Obama if he needs it. This could be something we are all looking for.

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL

Posted by Marty Didier | January 25, 2008 5:38 PM

There is a lot of merit to what SK and Jasper said above. Somehow, the "pundits" think that people don't want a former president to come down off the pedestal and talk to them. They must think that if a President Clinton walks through the backrooms of a casino campaigning--talking, shaking hands with waiters and dishwashers--it must be "demeaning" "unseemly" "appalling" (just to repeat some words used to describe the behavior this past week.) As for me, I loved it. I'm sure that the common, ordinary workers did/do as well. They might even remember it the rest of their lives that they talked with a President. But then, maybe Washington cognoscenti think that only "pay to play" receptions are worthy of Presidential handshakes and pictures. I've always regarded President Clinton highly--and, I especially like that he is comfortable with and welcoming to all people. He just might be a POPULIST AT HEART.
(Oh, by the way, perhaps commenter "ejellison" could take his misogyny elsewhere.)

Posted by christinep | January 25, 2008 6:14 PM

Team Obama and Team Clinton are both right - Big Dog's continued skirmishing with Tuvok helps draw/solidify support in each team's coalition.
The problem for Obama is, at the moment, Clinton's coalition is larger than Obama's.

The entire race comes down to Obama's victory speech tomorrow night and how he pivots to draw votes from Clinton's coalition. I would guess Team Obama will start making appeals to white and Latino working-class men.

Posted by time to pivot | January 26, 2008 2:23 AM

It's hard not to blame the media when editors headline a story about Senator Clinton with an adversarial word like "Kremlinology."

It would be more productive -- but harder work -- if reporters were assigned to compare and contrast the respective proposals of Clinton, Obama and Edwards, instead of covering the primaries as if they were a sports event.

What especially disgusts me about the present coverage is that reporters routinely dismiss Hillary Clinton's discussions of policy as "wonky" which suggest they can't be bothered parsing what the candidate is actually saying.

I suspect that should Obama ever get around to talking turkey about what he plans to do for America should he be elected -- and at this point we needn't hold our breath -- the discussion will be treated with far more respect. For reasons that are a mystery to me, Obama's minister-rhetoric about "inspiration" has been regarded as the profound utterances of a Harvard Man, instead of the greeting-card cliche-ridden, churchy hot air it actually consists of.

But discussions of *policy* are at the core of covering an election; not discussions of who cried, or who has been critical of whom. Considering the response he has been getting from the press, Bill Clinton must feel as if he is casting his pearls before swine.

Posted by bobbie wickham | January 26, 2008 7:44 AM